The Journal of Practical Intelligence and Wisdom (JPIW) employs a dual-track quality assurance process tailored to the nature of the submission, ensuring both academic rigor and practical relevance.
1. Peer-Reviewed Research Articles (Double-Blind)
This track is for original empirical research, theoretical models, and systematic reviews. The goal is to evaluate the methodological soundness and scholarly contribution of the work.
Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening (Dual Review)
The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and a second designated Associate Editor conduct a rapid Dual Review assessment of the submission to ensure:
- Scope Alignment: The manuscript fits the journal’s focus (practical intelligence, wisdom, judgment).
- Ethical Compliance: Initial checks for plagiarism, undisclosed AI use, and adherence to authorship criteria.
- Anonymity: Identity of the author has been successfully removed for double-blind review.
Step 2: External Peer Review
The manuscript is sent to a minimum of two external experts who specialize in the subject matter and methodology.
- The process is double-blind: Reviewers do not know the author’s identity, and the author does not know the reviewer’s identity.
- Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate the work based on Scholarly Rigor (methodology, analysis, conclusions) and its Practical Utility (real-world applicability).
- Accelerated Timeline: JPIW aims to complete the external review phase and deliver a final decision within 6–8 weeks total.
Step 3: Editorial Decision
Based on the consolidated reviewer feedback, the Editor issues one of the following decisions:
- Accept: For high-quality manuscripts requiring only minor copyediting.
- Minor Revision: Requires small, focused changes (e.g., clarification of terms, minor data presentation adjustments).
- Major Revision: Requires substantial rework of methodology, analysis, or core structure; the revised manuscript is often re-reviewed.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet JPIW standards or is outside the journal’s scope.
2. Practitioner Essays and Case Studies (Editorial Review)
This track is for professional narratives, case studies, and evidence-based insights. This content does not undergo external academic peer review.
Step 1: Submission and Screening
The author submits the Essay, identifying it as a Practitioner piece. The EiC screens for ethical compliance and relevance.
Step 2: Focused Editorial Review
A dedicated Section Editor reviews the manuscript with a focus on:
- Practical Relevance: Is the lesson or insight actionable and valuable to practitioners?
- Clarity and Tone: Is the writing accessible to a broad, interdisciplinary audience?
- Factual Accuracy: Ensures that any case details or data cited are presented accurately.
Step 3: Feedback and Finalization
The Section Editor provides constructive feedback to the author, focusing on improving the communication and practical application of the insights. Once the essay meets the quality threshold, it is accepted for publication.
3. Conflicts of Interest (COI) and Ethical Oversight
All individuals involved in the review process—Editors, Associate Editors, and Reviewers—must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (COI) that could bias their judgment.
- Policy: JPIW manages all potential and declared COIs strictly according to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
- Action: In the event of a COI, the individual must recuse themselves immediately, and an objective replacement will be assigned to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the review.
The world does not need more information. It needs more wisdom in action.