Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovations and Therapeutic Horizons (JPITH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This ensures that every manuscript is evaluated objectively and fairly by experts in the field, contributing to the journal's scholarly excellence.

 

  1. Double-Blind Review Process
  • The identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
  • This ensures unbiased evaluation, focusing solely on the content and scientific merit of the manuscript.
  1. Steps in the Peer Review Process
  1. Initial Screening:
    • Manuscripts are screened by the editorial team for relevance, originality, adherence to submission guidelines, and compliance with ethical standards.
    • Submissions that do not meet the journal’s criteria are returned to the authors with feedback.
  2. Reviewer Assignment:
    • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.
    • Reviewers are selected based on their qualifications, research experience, and publication history.
  3. Reviewer Evaluation:
    • Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
      • Originality and novelty of the research.
      • Clarity and organization of the content.
      • Methodological soundness and validity of results.
      • Relevance and significance to the field of pharmaceutical sciences and therapeutics.
    • Ethical compliance and proper citation of sources are also evaluated.
  4. Review Reports:
    • Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback and recommend one of the following actions:
      • Accept without revisions
      • Minor revisions required
      • Major revisions required
      • Reject
  5. Editorial Decision:
    • Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes a final decision:
      • If revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the authors with reviewer comments.
      • Revised manuscripts may undergo a second round of review if necessary.
  6. Publication:
    • Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication, including professional copyediting, typesetting, and DOI assignment.

 

  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers
  • Provide fair, unbiased, and constructive feedback.
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid discussing the manuscript with others.
  • Decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
  • Notify the editorial team of any ethical concerns, such as suspected plagiarism or data fabrication.

 

  1. Timeline
  • Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their evaluation.
  • Authors are expected to submit revised manuscripts within 2–3 weeks of receiving feedback.

 

  1. Appeals
  • Authors may appeal decisions they feel were unjust by submitting a detailed explanation.
  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent panel, and the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

 

  1. Ethical Compliance
  • The peer review process adheres to guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability.