1. The reviewers are requested to see that the authors have followed the Author's Guidelines for their manuscripts. They must not only see the subject/specialty/discipline and related matter, but also the epidemiological, statistical, and writing format of the manuscripts. 
2. The comments should be added in soft using the Track Changes option in the Review option of MS Word. Further comments may be added in the Review Box for the editor or the editor & the author. 
3. If desired, further documents may be added/ uploaded for the guidance of the editor and/ or the authors.
4. The reviewers may upload any files or documents to help the editors and/or authors.
5. Conflict of interest box has to be filled and saved.
6. The reviewers may get the revised manuscript for the second round of review if required by the editor.  
7. The reviewers are requested to take care of the timelines.
8. The reviewers are requested to give their final recommendations at the end.

        It is important for peer reviewers to be mindful of the ethical impacts of the review process, and to consider them carefully when responding to a review invitation or completing a review.

Reviewers can follow the comprehensive ethical guidelines for peer reviewers and useful case studies on the website of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The ethical considerations for reviewing:

1. Conflicts of interest

2. Bias

3. Confidentiality

• The double-blind peer review model being used requires the anonymity of the author(s) and/or reviewers. Thus, it is essential for the reviewer to understand our peer-review model and avoid including any identifying information in the documents you provide as part of the review process. This is to minimize the chance that this information is inadvertently passed on to the author(s).
• Manuscripts that are sent for review are confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with anyone other than those involved in the peer review process. Sharing with third-party tools such as ChatGPT would constitute a breach of confidentiality and be considered as a form of peer-review misconduct.
• After you have completed your review, or if you have rejected the invitation to review, you must not share or discuss the work or any related information, even if the work is to be published.
• While we encourage the mentorship of new reviewers by involving them in the review process, it is crucial to get the permission of the editor before sharing the details of any review activity with a colleague, or asking someone else to complete the review on your behalf.
• JPPS provides the facility to make confidential comments to the editor that are not seen by the author(s). These comments can be useful for sharing concerns or viewpoints that would be inappropriate to raise directly in the review report.

4. Quality and efficiency

5. Raising any concerns about author/editor misconduct