Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovations and Therapeutic Horizons (JPITH) relies on the expertise of reviewers to maintain the quality and integrity of the manuscripts it publishes. Reviewers play a critical role in the peer-review process, ensuring that the research meets the journal's high standards for originality, rigor, and relevance.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Evaluate the Manuscript’s Quality:
    • Assess the originality, relevance, and significance of the manuscript to the fields of pharmaceutical sciences and therapeutics.
    • Examine the clarity, coherence, and organization of the content.
  2. Provide Constructive Feedback:
    • Offer specific and actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript.
    • Avoid overly critical or vague comments; focus on constructive critique.
  3. Ensure Objectivity:
    • Maintain an impartial attitude and evaluate the manuscript solely on its academic merit, without personal bias or discrimination.
  4. Respect Confidentiality:
    • Treat the manuscript and its content as confidential. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with unauthorized parties.
  5. Identify Ethical Concerns:
    • Alert the editors to any suspected ethical issues, including plagiarism, data falsification, or conflicts of interest.
  6. Meet Deadlines:
    • Complete the review within the agreed timeframe. If additional time is needed, inform the editorial office promptly.
  7. Disclose Conflicts of Interest:
    • Inform the editor of any conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or academic) that might compromise your objectivity.

 

Steps in the Review Process

  1. Acceptance of Review Invitation:
    • Upon receiving an invitation, confirm your availability and expertise to review the manuscript.
    • If you feel unqualified or unable to complete the review within the deadline, notify the editor immediately.
  2. Initial Assessment:
    • Read the manuscript to determine its relevance and overall quality.
    • Ensure the manuscript fits within the journal’s scope and adheres to submission guidelines.
  3. Detailed Evaluation: Provide feedback on the following:
    • Originality: Does the manuscript present novel and valuable insights?
    • Technical Soundness: Are the methodologies and analyses rigorous and accurate?
    • Relevance: Does the manuscript align with current advancements in pharmaceutical sciences and therapeutics?
    • Clarity: Is the writing clear, concise, and well-organized?
    • References: Are citations comprehensive, accurate, and appropriate?
  4. Recommendation:
    • Recommend one of the following decisions:
      • Accept without revision.
      • Minor revisions required.
      • Major revisions required.
      • Reject.
    • Justify your recommendation with clear, specific comments.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality:
    Treat all manuscripts as confidential and refrain from sharing or discussing them with others.
  2. Objectivity:
    Provide fair, unbiased, and constructive feedback.
  3. Acknowledgment of Sources:
    Ensure authors have appropriately cited relevant work. Report any instances of suspected plagiarism.
  4. Conflict of Interest:
    Disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline to review if necessary.

 

Providing Feedback

  • Positive Comments: Acknowledge the strengths of the manuscript.
  • Critical Comments: Highlight weaknesses and suggest ways to address them.
  • Formatting Suggestions: Point out inconsistencies in formatting, figures, or tables if necessary.

 

Timelines

  • Reviewers are typically given 2–3 weeks to complete the review.
  • If more time is needed, inform the editorial team promptly to request an extension.