Reviewer Guidelines

Skip to content

Peer reviewers are central to the quality and credibility of scholarly publishing. At the Archives of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (APPS), reviewers contribute their expertise, time, and judgment to evaluate submitted manuscripts. These guidelines outline expectations, ethical principles, and practical instructions for reviewers to ensure transparency, fairness, and excellence.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers provide constructive, unbiased, and timely assessments of submitted manuscripts. Their evaluation helps editors determine the suitability of manuscripts for publication, ensures the scientific rigor of accepted work, and guides authors toward improving their research.

Key principle: Reviewers serve as guardians of quality, not gatekeepers of ideas. They should evaluate methodology, clarity, and evidence—not personal preference or ideology.

Ethical Duties of Reviewers

  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and not share with unauthorized individuals.
  • Declare conflicts of interest and decline reviews when impartiality is compromised.
  • Avoid using privileged information from manuscripts for personal gain.
  • Provide respectful, objective, and evidence-based feedback.

Conduct During Review

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on scientific merit, originality, methodology, clarity, and ethical compliance. Reviews must be written constructively, avoiding derogatory or dismissive language. If a reviewer identifies potential misconduct, such as plagiarism or unethical research practices, they should notify the editor immediately.

Criteria for Evaluation

Reviewers should consider the following criteria when assessing manuscripts:

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of APPS.
  • Clarity of research objectives and questions.
  • Appropriateness of methodology and study design.
  • Validity of data and interpretation of results.
  • Adherence to ethical standards, including IRB approval and informed consent.
  • Contribution to existing literature and originality of findings.
  • Quality of writing, figures, and tables.

Timeliness

Reviewers must respect deadlines. A typical review timeline is two to three weeks. If additional time is required, reviewers should promptly inform the editor to prevent unnecessary delays for authors.

Structure of a Review Report

To assist authors and editors, reviewers should organize their feedback clearly. A well-structured report often includes:

  • Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript, highlighting its contribution.
  • Major Comments: Detailed evaluation of key aspects, including methods, results, and discussion.
  • Minor Comments: Suggestions on clarity, language, formatting, or minor corrections.
  • Recommendation: Clear advice on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Recognition of Reviewer Contributions

APPS values reviewer contributions and may acknowledge them through reviewer certificates, annual thank-you lists, and optional integration with recognition platforms like Publons. Recognition programs reinforce the vital role reviewers play in sustaining scholarly communication.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can reviewers remain anonymous?
A: Yes. APPS uses a double-blind review model where reviewer and author identities are hidden. Reviewers may request to disclose their names if they prefer transparency.

Q: How should reviewers handle suspected plagiarism?
A: Reviewers should not contact authors directly. Instead, they must alert the editor, who will follow COPE’s plagiarism handling flowchart.

Q: Are reviewers expected to correct grammar and spelling?
A: Reviewers are not required to act as copyeditors but should point out areas where clarity or readability is compromised.

Contact

For questions about the reviewer role or these guidelines, please contact: