Peer Review Policy

JPMT is a peer-reviewed journal. JPMT uses a double-anonymized peer-review model for research manuscripts unless an alternative model is explicitly stated for a particular article category. In this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. This model is intended to reduce bias and support objective assessment. Authors should note, however, that complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every case. In highly specialized areas, a reviewer may be able to infer authorship from the subject matter, references, self-citations, or institutional context. JPMT therefore applies double-anonymized review as a procedural safeguard rather than as an absolute guarantee of anonymity.

Upon submission, each manuscript follows a structured editorial pathway: technical check, scope check, editorial assessment, reviewer selection, external peer review, statistical or methodological assessment (if required), revision, final decision, and production. Manuscripts that pass technical and scope checks are assessed by the handling editor for originality, significance, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and fit with the journal’s aims. If the manuscript is suitable for external review, the editor selects independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are external experts who are independent of the journal’s editorial staff and, where reasonably possible, independent of the authors. Research Articles normally receive assessment from at least two qualified external reviewers. Manuscripts involving substantial clinical, statistical, computational, or highly specialized methodological components may be reviewed by additional experts. At least one reviewer must have direct expertise in the microbiome. For clinical manuscripts, a clinical or translational reviewer may be invited as needed; for AI or omics papers, a computational or statistical reviewer may be invited as needed. Reviewers must not be close collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, recent co-authors, or direct competitors with a substantive conflict of interest. All reviewers are expected to declare conflicts of interest, and editors will exclude any reviewer whose participation could compromise the integrity of the review.

Reviewer reports inform the editorial decision but do not determine it. The handling editor evaluates the reports alongside the manuscript’s scientific merit and the journal’s editorial criteria and may request major or minor revision, accept, reject, or seek additional review. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, to additional reviewers. Peer review is advisory. Final editorial responsibility rests with the appropriate editor (the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor). Accepted manuscripts proceed to production only after all editorial, ethical, and formatting requirements have been satisfied. This policy is publicly available to authors, reviewers, and readers as part of JPMT’s commitment to transparent and rigorous peer review.

Peer Review Process at a Glance

Submission → Technical Check → Scope Check → Editorial Assessment → Reviewer Selection → External Peer Review → Statistical/Methodological Assessment (if required) → Revision → Final Decision → Production

JPMT uses a double-anonymized peer-review model for research manuscripts unless an alternative model is explicitly stated for a particular article category. Research Articles normally receive assessment from at least two qualified external reviewers; manuscripts involving substantial clinical, statistical, computational, or highly specialized methodological components may be reviewed by additional experts. At least one reviewer should have direct expertise in the microbiome. Reviewers must have no significant conflict of interest. Although identities are concealed, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in highly specialized fields.