Overview of the Peer Review Model

APPS follows a double-blind peer review model. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other, which minimizes bias and promotes impartial evaluations. In exceptional circumstances, open peer review may be considered, but only with consent from both authors and reviewers.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

• Initial Screening: The editor checks the submission for compliance with author guidelines, scope, plagiarism, and ethical standards.
• Reviewer Selection: Qualified reviewers with relevant expertise are invited. Diversity in geography, gender, and academic background is considered.
• Review Assignment: Reviewers receive anonymized manuscripts along with evaluation forms and deadlines.
• Review Reports: Reviewers submit detailed feedback covering novelty, methodology, ethical compliance, and clarity.
• Editorial Decision: The editor evaluates reviewer recommendations and makes a decision: acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection.
• Revision and Resubmission: Authors revise their manuscript based on reviewer and editor comments, with changes tracked for transparency.
• Final Decision: After resubmission, the editor may seek additional reviews before issuing the final acceptance or rejection.

Reviewer Criteria and Expectations

Reviewers are asked to assess submissions based on:

• Scientific originality and contribution to the field.
• Appropriateness and rigor of methods.
• Ethical compliance including IRB approvals and informed consent.
• Validity of results and strength of conclusions.
• Clarity, organization, and quality of presentation.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All materials under review must be kept confidential. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from sharing or using unpublished data for personal gain. The double-blind system protects both parties and encourages honest critique.

Timelines for Peer Review

Timeliness is critical in scholarly communication. APPS aims for the following standards:

• Initial editorial screening: within 7 working days.
• Reviewer assignment: within 10–14 working days.
• Reviewer feedback: usually within 2–3 weeks of assignment.
• Editorial decision: within 6–8 weeks of initial submission.

Ethical Oversight During Review

Editors and reviewers must remain vigilant for signs of misconduct including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submissions, or improper authorship. If issues are suspected, COPE flowcharts guide the steps to investigate and resolve them.

Example: If a reviewer suspects falsified data in a clinical trial, they should immediately inform the editor, who will request supporting data from the authors and may escalate the case.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit an appeal with a detailed explanation. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or independent board member. Complaints about editorial conduct are handled transparently, ensuring fairness to all parties.

Transparency and Accountability

All editorial decisions are documented within the journal’s manuscript system. Audit trails of communications and decisions are preserved to ensure transparency and accountability. This provides confidence to authors, reviewers, and readers in the editorial process.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can authors suggest reviewers?
A: Yes, authors may suggest reviewers. However, the editorial team independently verifies reviewer expertise and ensures no conflicts of interest exist.

Q: What happens if reviewers disagree in their recommendations?
A: The editor carefully considers both sets of feedback and may invite a third reviewer for clarification.

Q: Are reviewer reports shared with authors?
A: Yes. Authors receive anonymized reports containing constructive feedback, regardless of acceptance or rejection.

Contact

For further information about the peer review process, please contact:

• Email: info@hspioa.org
• Contact Form: https://www.pharmacyscijournal.com/contact