All papers, including those invited by the editor, are subject to peer review. PHRP has adopted a double-blind peer review policy, where the author identities remain anonymous to the reviewers, and vice versa, and the identities of the reviewers and authors are visible to (decision-making) the editor throughout the peer review process. The Editorial Board selects reviewers based on expertise, publication history, and past reviews. During the peer review process, reviewers can interact directly or exchange information (e.g., via submission systems or email) with only an editor, which is known as “independent review.” An initial decision will normally be made within 4−6 weeks after the reviewers agree to review a manuscript. No information about the review process or editorial decision process is published on the article page.

• AI use by peer reviewers: Generative AI tools can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while the journal explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.