Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Pharmacology and Drug Science follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of published research. In the double-blind process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process, as far as practicable.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their scope, originality, scientific relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that meet the journal's basic requirements are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

The final publication decision is made by the Editor or Editorial Board based on the reviewers' assessments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal's editorial standards.

Importance of Peer Review

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly communication and contributes substantially to maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific literature.

The peer-review process helps to:

• Evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of submitted research.

• Identify methodological, analytical, interpretative, or presentation-related weaknesses.

• Verify whether conclusions are appropriately supported by the presented evidence.

• Identify inadvertent errors, inconsistencies, and areas requiring clarification.

• Help authors improve the accuracy, clarity, completeness, and scientific presentation of their manuscripts.

• Assist editors in making informed decisions regarding publication.

Peer review is intended to provide constructive and objective scientific assessment, rather than to guarantee acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Before Accepting an Invitation

Reviewers should consider the following before accepting an invitation:

Subject Expertise

Reviewers should accept an assignment only when they have sufficient knowledge and expertise to provide a meaningful assessment of the manuscript.

Availability

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they can complete the review within the requested timeframe. If additional time is required, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest to the editor before accepting or undertaking the review.

A conflict of interest does not necessarily prevent someone from reviewing a manuscript. However, the editor should be informed so that an appropriate decision can be made.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Working in the same department, institution, or organization as one of the authors.

• Having recently collaborated with one or more authors.

• Having a personal, professional, academic, or financial relationship with an author.

• Having a direct or indirect financial interest related to the research.

• Being involved in competing research that could affect impartiality.

• Having any other relationship that could reasonably influence the review.

Reviewers should not accept an assignment if the conflict could compromise their objectivity.

Conducting the Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review.

Reviewers should:

• Treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential documents.

• Not disclose the manuscript or its contents to any third party.

• Not share, copy, distribute, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional purposes.

• Not contact the authors directly regarding the manuscript.

• Provide an objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based assessment.

• Clearly distinguish major scientific concerns from minor editorial or presentation issues.

• Support significant criticisms with appropriate scientific reasoning or references where relevant.

• Avoid personal, discriminatory, offensive, or inappropriate comments.

• Inform the editor if they believe they lack sufficient expertise to evaluate a particular aspect of the manuscript.

Reviewer comments and recommendations contribute to the editorial decision; however, the final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor or Editorial Board.

Reviewer Assessment Criteria

Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts under the following headings.

1. Title

• Does the title accurately and clearly reflect the content of the manuscript?

• Is it concise, informative, and appropriate for the study?

2. Abstract

• Does the abstract accurately represent the manuscript?

• Are the objectives, methodology, major findings, and conclusions clearly presented?

• Are the conclusions supported by the reported results?

3. Introduction

Reviewers should assess whether the introduction:

• Clearly establishes the scientific background and rationale.

• Defines the research problem or knowledge gap.

• Provides an appropriate review of relevant literature.

• Clearly states the objectives or research questions.

• Presents the hypothesis, where applicable.

• Explains the significance of the study.

4. Materials and Methods

Reviewers should determine whether:

• The research design is appropriate for the stated objectives.

• The methodology is sufficiently described to allow reproducibility.

• Sampling procedures and sample sizes are appropriate and adequately reported.

• Experimental materials, instruments, reagents, and procedures are adequately described.

• Appropriate controls are included where necessary.

• Statistical methods are appropriate and adequately described.

• Ethical approvals and relevant regulatory requirements are reported where applicable.

• The methods are presented in a logical and reproducible manner.

If reviewers are not sufficiently qualified to assess the statistical analysis, they should indicate this to the editor.

5. Results

Reviewers should assess whether:

• Results are presented clearly and logically.

• The reported findings correspond to the stated objectives.

• Appropriate statistical analyses have been applied.

• Tables and figures accurately represent the results.

• Data are presented consistently throughout the manuscript.

• The results are sufficiently detailed to support the conclusions.

• Unnecessary repetition between text, tables, and figures is avoided.

6. Discussion

The discussion should:

• Interpret the major findings appropriately.

• Relate the findings to previous research.

• Explain agreements or differences with relevant literature.

• Address the significance and implications of the findings.

• Avoid unsupported interpretations or excessive speculation.

• Clearly distinguish findings from hypotheses or proposed explanations.

7. Conclusion

Reviewers should determine whether:

• The conclusions are directly supported by the results.

• The claims are reasonable and appropriately limited.

• The findings are related to the stated objectives.

• The contribution of the research to existing scientific knowledge is clearly articulated.

• Unsupported or exaggerated claims are avoided.

8. Acknowledgements

Where applicable, acknowledgements should appropriately recognize specific assistance, technical support, institutional support, or funding. Routine institutional facilities need not normally be acknowledged.

9. Author Contributions

The manuscript should clearly state the respective contributions of each author to the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data analysis, writing, revision, supervision, or other relevant activities, as applicable.

10. Competing Interests

Authors should provide a clear declaration regarding competing interests.

Where no competing interests exist, an appropriate statement such as:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

11. References

Reviewers should assess whether:

• References are relevant and sufficiently current.

• Important primary literature has been appropriately considered.

• In-text citations correspond to the reference list.

• References are presented according to the journal's prescribed reference style.

• Excessive, irrelevant, or inappropriate self-citation is avoided.

12. Ethics Approval

Where research involves human participants, human data, animals, or other ethically regulated research, reviewers should verify that appropriate ethical approval or exemption has been reported.

For animal research, the manuscript should provide relevant institutional or regulatory ethical approval details and demonstrate compliance with applicable animal welfare requirements.

For human research, appropriate ethics approval, informed consent, and relevant participant-protection measures should be reported where applicable.

13. Language and Presentation

The manuscript should be sufficiently clear and understandable to communicate the scientific findings.

Reviewers should identify serious language or presentation problems that interfere with scientific interpretation. Reviewers are not expected to provide detailed language editing, although they may identify sections requiring substantial linguistic or structural improvement.

Ethical Considerations

Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, substantial text duplication, duplicate publication, or inappropriate reuse of previously published material, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor with supporting information or references where available.

Reviewers should not independently contact or accuse the authors.

Research Misconduct and Data Integrity

If reviewers identify potential concerns regarding:

• Fabrication or falsification of data

• Manipulation of images

• Selective reporting

• Data inconsistencies

• Duplicate or manipulated figures

• Suspicious authorship or contribution statements

• Other forms of research misconduct

they should confidentially notify the editor and provide specific details supporting the concern.

The journal will investigate such concerns according to its editorial and ethical procedures.

Human and Animal Research

Reviewers should consider whether research involving human participants or animals has been conducted in accordance with relevant ethical standards and whether the manuscript appropriately reports:

• Ethics committee/institutional approval

• Informed consent, where applicable

• Animal welfare procedures

• Relevant regulatory or institutional requirements

Any serious ethical concern should be communicated directly to the editor.

Reviewer Comments

Reviewers are encouraged to structure their comments clearly under:

Major Comments

Issues that may substantially affect the scientific validity, interpretation, reproducibility, or conclusions of the manuscript.

Minor Comments

Issues involving clarification, presentation, terminology, references, figures, tables, formatting, or other relatively limited corrections.

Reviewer comments should be specific, constructive, professional, and scientifically justified.

Recommendation to the Editor

After completing the assessment, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear comments explaining the scientific basis for the assessment.

The reviewer should indicate whether the manuscript requires further evaluation after revision, where applicable.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor or Editorial Board based on the complete evaluation of the manuscript.

Reviewer Confidentiality

All information obtained through the peer-review process must remain confidential. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, data, ideas, or interpretations obtained through peer review for their own research or professional advantage.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.