Peer Review Policy
Double-Blind Peer Review Process
All papers submitted to our journal are subjected to rigorous, editorial review followed by double-blind peer review. We send articles to the subject experts to take their scientific view on the quality of content, article structure, language and reference correctness.
Every manuscript is reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper despite gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nor citizenry, nor of the author(s).
Any conflict of interest observed during the review process will be communicated to the author.
All information about the manuscript is kept confidential. Reason for the rejection of publication of an article will be communicated to the author and editor.
We are unveiling the review parameters and editorial workflow chart here in the peer review policy. Authors can follow the review process and its effectiveness before start compiling the manuscript for submission.
Manuscript submission and peer review processes managed within the online submission portal at www.pharmascope.online. Authors can view their submission status and review comments for constant revision.
- Does the reviewer has raised any conflict of interest when reviewing this paper?
- Did the peers reviewed or rejected this article before? If so, the reviewer needs to decline this peer review and let the editors know.
- Do the title and abstract cover fundamental aspects of the work, would it brings attention to the right readers?
- Is the Introduction part easy to follow for most readers of our journal? Does it indicate the relevant papers? Does it provide a hypothesis or aim and objective of the study?
- Does the Methods part provide adequate details for the researcher to reproduce the analyses?
- If the reviewer skips the Methods, does the Results section give the real significance of detail to understand the essential specifications of the experiments?
- Do the Results section refer to the figures in sequential order? Do the tables add up correctly and provided with captions? Are any figures/tables mislabeled or unclear?
- Given the data that were obtained in this study, did the authors perform all the logical analyses? Did they include the proper limitations?
- Does the Discussion part address the main findings, and does it give proper acknowledgement to related work in the same field?
- In general, is the paper made it easy to follow and does it have a logical sense flow? Are there any spelling and grammar issues?
- Did the authors arrange all their data (e.g. sequence reads, code, questionnaires used) available for the readers?
- Are this paper novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done quite comparable work?
- Does the paper raise any ethical concerns? Any suspicion of plagiarised text or experiments, duplicated or tampered images, unethical animal experiments, or "dual use of research interest"?
Review Workflow Chart
We welcome the opinion of the readers, authors, reviewers, editors and their feedback on our review policy.
Please send any comments or suggestion on how to improve this review policy to firstname.lastname@example.org