01
!
Major Concerns May Include
- Serious methodological limitations
- Insufficient evidence
- Major ethical concerns
- Unsupported conclusions
- Significant inconsistencies
- Problems affecting the validity of the findings
Review Guidelines
PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES & THERAPEUTIC INSIGHTS
Review Guidelines
Supporting rigorous, constructive, evidence-based, and responsible peer review.
R
✓
01
THE REVIEW PROCESS
Responsible Peer Review
Peer review protects scholarly quality
Peer reviewing is one of the most crucial processes in ensuring the quality of scholarly communication.
Peer reviewing of any manuscript is the responsibility of the reviewer.
02 REVIEW ASSESSMENT
Reviewers Should Consider
Reviewers should assess the manuscript across the following areas and consider the key questions associated with each area.
01 Relevance
KEY QUESTION
Does the manuscript fit the journal's scope?
02 Originality
KEY QUESTION
Does the work provide a meaningful contribution?
03 Research Question
KEY QUESTION
Is the objective clearly defined?
04 Methodology
KEY QUESTION
Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently described?
05 Results
KEY QUESTION
Are the findings clearly presented and supported?
06 Discussion
KEY QUESTION
Are findings interpreted appropriately?
07 References
KEY QUESTION
Are relevant and reliable sources used?
08 Presentation
KEY QUESTION
Is the manuscript clear and logically organized?
09 Ethics
KEY QUESTION
Are relevant ethical requirements addressed?
10 Overall Scientific Quality
KEY QUESTION
Is the manuscript suitable for further editorial consideration?
04 REVIEW CLASSIFICATION
Major and Minor Concerns
Identifying the nature of a concern helps distinguish substantive scientific issues from corrections that do not affect the overall validity of the manuscript.
02
✓
Minor Concerns May Include
- Typographical errors
- Formatting issues
- Minor clarification requests
- Reference corrections
- Language or presentation issues
R
05 REVIEWER PRINCIPLE
Focus on Scientific Quality
Reviewers should not recommend rejection simply because a manuscript does not agree with their personal scientific preferences.
✓
Comments should relate to the manuscript's scientific quality and relevance.
RESPONSIBLE PEER REVIEW
Make Every Comment Useful
A useful review should help authors understand the strengths, limitations, and areas requiring attention.
Specific
Comments should identify clear points that require attention.
Respectful
Feedback should be communicated professionally and respectfully.
Evidence-Based
Comments should be supported by appropriate scientific reasoning and evidence.
Constructive
Feedback should help improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Manuscript Relevant
Comments should remain relevant to the manuscript being reviewed.
Reviewers should distinguish between major concerns and minor corrections wherever possible.