Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer reviewers play an important role in maintaining the scientific quality and integrity of the International Journal of Pharmaceuticals and Health Care Research (IJPHR).

1. Peer-Review Model

IJPHR follows a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, and reviewers should avoid including identifying information in their reports.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, discuss or use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional advantage.

3. Reviewer Expertise

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when sufficiently qualified to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers who believe that the manuscript falls substantially outside their expertise should inform the editor promptly.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose financial, institutional, professional, collaborative or personal relationships that could compromise objective evaluation.

Where an appropriate independent review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline the invitation.

5. Objectivity and Constructive Assessment

Reviews should be objective, evidence-based and constructive. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Comments should clearly explain scientific concerns and, where possible, indicate how the manuscript could be improved.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following:

  • Relevance to IJPHR's aims and scope
  • Originality and scientific contribution
  • Appropriateness of the study design
  • Quality and reproducibility of methods
  • Validity of statistical analysis
  • Accuracy and clarity of results
  • Relationship between results and conclusions
  • Adequacy of ethical reporting
  • Quality and relevance of references
  • Clarity of tables, figures and presentation

7. Research Ethics and Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate image manipulation, ethical concerns or other possible research-integrity problems.

8. Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers should not upload confidential manuscript content into external generative-AI systems or other services when doing so could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property or protected research information.

9. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete evaluations within the agreed period. If additional time is required or the review cannot be completed, the editor should be informed promptly.

10. Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear scientific reasoning. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's academic editor.

11. Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to reassess revised manuscripts, particularly where substantial scientific or methodological changes have been requested.

12. Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers should communicate respectfully and should evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, geographic origin or other characteristics unrelated to scientific merit.