To maintain quality and publish accurate scientific manuscripts, it is crucial to pass the manuscripts through a rigorous peer review process. Peer review ensures that manuscripts meet high standards and contributes to the quality of scientific research and articles published in the journal. Although the peer review process takes considerable time, it is essential for the integrity of scientific publishing. The Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT) appreciates the work of reviewers, who dedicate their time and efforts to improving the quality of articles in the scientific field.
Reviewers are responsible for assessing manuscripts based on several factors, including their contribution to the scientific field, data manipulation, and relevance of the information. At RJPT, reviewers are motivated and guided to provide honest and constructive feedback to help authors enhance their work. Reviewers are encouraged to offer feedback in a manner that supports authors in advancing the quality of their scientific contributions.
RJPT collaborates with a diverse group of reviewers sourced from various channels, including editorial board members, their contacts, publicly available scientific work, personal connections, bibliographic databases, and suggestions from authors. The acceptance and rejection of manuscripts are primarily based on the comments and guidance provided by reviewers.
Author Suggestions for Reviewers
Authors submitting manuscripts to the Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology (RJPT) may suggest potential reviewers based on the following guidelines:
- Expertise and Academic Standing: Suggested reviewers should possess a high level of expertise and academic standing in the relevant subject area of the submitted article, reflected through their publications and professional experience.
- Institutional Independence: Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors or from institutions with which the authors have had affiliations within the past five years to ensure an unbiased review process.
- Contact Information: Authors must provide the institutional or academic email addresses of the suggested reviewers. Personal email addresses are not acceptable.
- Profile Links: Authors should include web links to the academic profile pages (such as university or institutional pages or ORCID profiles) of the suggested reviewers to help editors verify their qualifications and suitability.
- Journal Discretion: The RJPT editorial team reserves the right not to use any of the suggested reviewers. The final decision on reviewer selection remains with the journal.
- Conflicts of Interest: Suggested reviewers should not have any conflict of interest with the authors, such as close collaboration, personal relationships, or shared financial interests, which could affect the objectivity of their review.
- Reviewer Acceptance: If authors challenge the editor's decision regarding the rejection of their manuscript, the manuscript may be sent to two additional reviewers, and the final decision will be based on their recommendations.
Guidelines for Reviewers to Accept and Reject Manuscripts
- Reviewers must assess the manuscript impartially and without personal bias against the authors.
- Criticism should be constructive, aiming to provide feedback that helps improve the manuscript without demotivating the author.
- Reviewers must ensure their review is unbiased and objective.
- Reviewers should maintain anonymity and not provide any hints that could reveal their identity.
- Reviewers must avoid involvement in the peer review process if they have personal conflicts of interest with the author or the manuscript's subject.
- Reviewers should keep key points of the manuscript confidential and maintain secrecy.
- Reviewers have the option to provide comments directly or write to the editor. They must also complete a review form during the peer review process.
Questions for Reviewers to Consider
- Is the topic of the manuscript significant and relevant to the journal?
- Does the manuscript adhere to the author's instructions?
- Do the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusions accurately reflect the core issues of the manuscript?
- Is the manuscript well-written and free from grammatical errors?
- Is the aim of the manuscript appropriate for the subject, and are the methodologies followed correctly?
- Has the author obtained all necessary ethical approvals and consents from patients or their relatives, where applicable?
- Are the results statistically analyzed, and are the conclusions aligned with statistical principles and interpretation?
- Is there any evidence of data manipulation or bias in drawing conclusions?
- Are all tables and figures clearly labeled, self-descriptive, and understandable?
- Are the conclusions supported by facts and relevant data?
- Are the references cited appropriate to support the manuscript, and are they cited according to the journal’s reference style? Is any landmark work or citation missing?
For further reference, you can download the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers here: COPE Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.