The review policy of RJPT can be summarized as "the absolute assessment of manuscripts submitted by authors by determining and fixing the flaws and ensuring all manuscripts align with ‘transparency’ and ‘ethical values’ before publishing."
Reviewing manuscripts in RJPT is a critical stage in the publishing process, playing a primary role in identifying defects and adding value to the field of Pharmacy and Technology. It is fundamental in maintaining and enhancing the integrity, honesty, and moral aspects of published literature. The review process is meticulous and detail-oriented, requiring trust and sincerity from all participants in the peer review board. RJPT is committed to accepting only those articles and manuscripts that can withstand a rigorous review process, irrespective of the institute’s financial gain.
Members of the RJPT review board are required to strictly follow these guidelines:
- Reject manuscripts with personal, financial, or other conflicts of interest.
- Impose restrictions on authors with repeated cases of malpractice, conflicts of interest, or plagiarism.
- Do not accept manuscripts that have been simultaneously submitted to other journals.
- Maintain the anonymity of peer review members and individuals involved in the review process.
- Ensure the secrecy and confidentiality of manuscripts are properly maintained.
- Immediately refer manuscripts to experts when requested by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Consider the reports of the expert and review board before making a publication decision.
Publication Procedure
Preliminary Screening
Every new manuscript undergoes an initial screening led by the Editor-in-Chief to identify errors or data manipulation. The manuscript is also checked for compliance with ethical values, including human and animal experimentation rights as outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and COPE 2011 guidelines. Manuscripts not meeting RJPT's ethical standards and policies will be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts requiring minor corrections or having an unstructured flow will be returned to the author for revision and resubmission. After initial checks, the Editor-in-Chief consults with the journal’s Editor, Associate Editor, Advisory Board Member, or Editorial Board Member (in cases of conflict of interest) to determine if the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope. RJPT will not make a conclusion about the manuscript at this stage.
Peer Review
After successful preliminary screening, the manuscript will be sent to at least two independent subject experts for a comprehensive review. RJPT employs a double-blind review system where the identities of reviewers and authors are kept confidential, though the Editor-in-Chief is aware of these identities. RJPT may also consider reviewers suggested by authors during submission, but reviewers with recent collaborations or affiliations with the author’s institution will not be permitted.
Editorial Decision and Revision
RJPT ensures that every article undergoes a rigorous peer review process, receiving at least two reviews. After peer review, the reviewer consults with the Editor-in-Chief regarding the manuscript's publication decision with the following considerations:
- If the manuscript contains minor errors, the author will have five days to revise and resubmit.
- For major errors, the manuscript will be accepted only if the author submits a revised version within the given time limit. Only one major revision is permitted, and the manuscript will be subjected to another peer review process.
- If the manuscript is generally well-done but lacks additional experiments, authors will be encouraged to resubmit with the added experiments.
- If the manuscript has serious issues or does not make a significant contribution, it will be rejected immediately without resubmission.
Reviewers' conclusions must be shared with the author, and clear statements should be provided wherever necessary.
Author Appeals
If your manuscript is rejected, you may appeal by emailing the editorial office with a detailed explanation of why you disagree with the rejection. The Editor-in-Chief will review your appeal with the editorial board, which will then decide whether to accept the manuscript, re-conduct the peer review process, or uphold the original rejection. The decision made by the Editor-in-Chief is final and will not be changed.
In special cases, the journal’s Managing Director can forward the manuscript and related information to the Editor-in-Chief for advisory recommendations on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend acceptance or uphold the original rejection decision.
