Ethical Integrity

Reviewers must act with integrity, providing impartial and evidence-based evaluations. They should avoid personal bias, respect author diversity, and ensure that reviews contribute to the advancement of science rather than obstruct it.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts

All materials received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished information for personal advantage. Respect for confidentiality builds trust in the peer review system and upholds the rights of authors.

Providing Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are expected to deliver clear, respectful, and actionable feedback. Criticism should focus on the research methods, data interpretation, and presentation, not on personal judgments about the authors. Constructive reviews not only support editorial decisions but also assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Example: Instead of stating “the paper is poorly written,” a constructive reviewer might suggest, “clarify the methodology section and provide additional statistical details to strengthen reproducibility.”

Timeliness and Accountability

Respecting deadlines is an essential responsibility. Reviewers should accept assignments only if they can deliver within the requested timeframe, typically two to three weeks. If unexpected delays arise, reviewers must inform the editor promptly to avoid holding up the publication process.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality, such as collaborations with the authors, competing research, or financial ties. If conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the assignment so another impartial reviewer can be appointed.

Evaluating Scientific Quality

Reviewers should assess manuscripts based on:

• Originality and relevance of the research question.
• Soundness of study design and methodology.
• Accuracy of data analysis and validity of conclusions.
• Adherence to ethical standards for human and animal research.
• Clarity of presentation, structure, and writing style.

Responsibility Toward Authors

Reviewers should treat authors with respect, recognizing the effort and expertise invested in preparing a manuscript. Even when recommending rejection, reviews must be professional, evidence-based, and focused on improving the work.

Responsibility Toward Editors

Reviewers assist editors by providing clear recommendations and highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Their responsibility is to support fair and evidence-driven editorial decisions, ensuring manuscripts meet APPS’s quality and ethical standards.

Addressing Research Misconduct

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, or ethical violations, they must alert the editor immediately. Reviewers should not investigate misconduct independently but should provide evidence for the editor to act upon.

Recognition of Reviewer Contribution

APPS acknowledges the contributions of its reviewers by providing certificates, annual acknowledgments, and opportunities for recognition through platforms like Publons. Such recognition underscores the vital role reviewers play in sustaining academic publishing.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What if I lack expertise in part of the manuscript?
A: Inform the editor. You may still provide feedback on areas within your expertise, while another reviewer may be invited to cover the gaps.

Q: Am I obligated to edit grammar and style?
A: No, but reviewers should flag unclear or poorly structured sections that affect understanding.

Q: Can I co-review with a student or colleague?
A: Only with prior permission from the editor, and the co-reviewer must be acknowledged for transparency.

Contact

For clarification regarding reviewer responsibilities, please reach out to:

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