Editorial Process

Peer Review Policy

GJPSR follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and ethical integrity of every published manuscript.

The Global Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Research (GJPSR) follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of manuscripts published in the journal.

The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the peer-review process. Manuscripts are evaluated by independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise, and editorial decisions are made based on the scientific merits of the submitted work.

GJPSR is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, consistent, and unbiased peer-review process.

01

Type of Peer Review

GJPSR follows a double-blind peer-review system. Under this system:

  • The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.
  • Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Authors and reviewers should not attempt to identify one another during the review process.
  • Editorial decisions are made independently of commercial or other inappropriate influences.
02

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review. The editorial screening evaluates:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope
  • Originality and potential scientific contribution
  • Basic methodological quality
  • Scientific and academic presentation
  • Compliance with manuscript preparation requirements
  • Ethical requirements
  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text overlap
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Appropriate use of references
  • Availability of required declarations and supporting information

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially fail to meet the journal's basic requirements, or present significant ethical or scientific concerns may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.

Editorial screening does not constitute final acceptance or rejection based solely on the scientific merit of the manuscript.

03

Selection of Peer Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are assigned to qualified independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers may be selected based on:

  • Subject expertise
  • Research experience
  • Relevant scholarly publications
  • Methodological expertise
  • Academic or professional qualifications
  • Previous reviewing experience
  • Absence of conflicts of interest

Where appropriate, reviewers may be selected from different institutions and geographical locations. The journal seeks to ensure that reviewers are sufficiently independent from the authors and their institutions.

04

Number of Reviewers

Research manuscripts submitted to GJPSR are normally evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be invited when:

  • Reviewer recommendations substantially differ.
  • The manuscript involves multiple specialized disciplines.
  • Additional methodological expertise is required.
  • A reviewer is unable to complete the review.
  • The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor considers an additional independent assessment necessary.

The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the journal's authorized editor.

05

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts objectively and provide constructive scientific feedback. Depending on the article type, reviewers may evaluate:

Scientific Quality

  • Scientific originality
  • Relevance and significance
  • Contribution to existing knowledge
  • Adequacy of the research question or hypothesis
  • Appropriateness of the study design

Methodology

  • Adequacy and clarity of methods
  • Reproducibility of the methodology
  • Appropriateness of experimental procedures
  • Ethical compliance
  • Adequacy of controls and comparison groups
  • Appropriateness of statistical methods

Results and Discussion

  • Clarity and accuracy of results
  • Appropriate presentation of tables and figures
  • Interpretation of findings
  • Consistency between results and conclusions
  • Comparison with relevant previous research

Presentation

  • Clarity of writing
  • Organization of the manuscript
  • Quality of figures and tables
  • Appropriateness of references
  • Accuracy of scientific terminology

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor editorial corrections.

06

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes or only minor editorial corrections.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially suitable for publication but requires limited revisions.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revisions before a publication decision can be made.

Reject

The manuscript has substantial scientific, methodological, ethical, originality, or scope-related concerns that prevent publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor or authorized handling editor after considering the complete peer-review record.

07

Editorial Decision

Following receipt of the peer-review reports, the handling editor evaluates:

  • Reviewer recommendations
  • Scientific quality of the manuscript
  • Authors' responses, where applicable
  • Methodological and ethical considerations
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Originality and contribution
  • Overall suitability for publication

The possible editorial decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Where necessary, the manuscript may be returned to the reviewers following revision.

08

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should provide:

  1. A revised version of the manuscript.
  2. A detailed response to the reviewers' comments.
  3. A clear explanation of changes made in the revised manuscript.
  4. Justification for any reviewer recommendation that the authors do not adopt.

Authors should ensure that revisions are clearly identifiable and that all substantive reviewer comments are addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the editor considers additional review necessary.

09

Final Acceptance

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the responsible editor determines that:

  • The manuscript meets the journal's scientific requirements.
  • Required revisions have been satisfactorily addressed.
  • Ethical requirements have been fulfilled.
  • The manuscript complies with the journal's publication policies.
  • The final version is suitable for publication.

Acceptance is communicated formally to the corresponding author.

10

Reviewer Confidentiality

Peer reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscripts received for review. Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with others without editorial permission.
  • Discuss unpublished manuscript content with third parties.
  • Use unpublished information for personal research or professional advantage.
  • Copy or reproduce substantial portions of submitted manuscripts.
  • Reveal their identity to the authors through the review process.

Reviewers should destroy or appropriately delete manuscript files and confidential review materials after completing the review, where applicable.

11

Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with an author.
  • Current or recent institutional affiliation with an author.
  • Personal or professional relationships.
  • Direct competition involving the research.
  • Financial interests.
  • Other circumstances that could affect impartiality.

A reviewer with a significant conflict of interest should decline the assignment.

12

Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective and constructive assessments.
  • Evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific merits.
  • Avoid discriminatory, offensive, personal, or inappropriate comments.
  • Support comments and recommendations with clear scientific reasoning.
  • Identify relevant methodological or ethical concerns.
  • Identify important relevant literature where appropriate.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers should not request unnecessary citations to their own work or publications solely to increase citation counts.

13

Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest.

An editor should not handle a manuscript when there is a significant conflict of interest, including circumstances involving:

  • Their own manuscript.
  • A close colleague or collaborator.
  • A current or recent institutional affiliation.
  • Personal relationships with authors.
  • Financial or competing interests.
  • Other circumstances that could compromise editorial independence.

Where necessary, the manuscript will be transferred to an appropriate independent editor.

14

Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues and manuscripts handled by guest editors are subject to the same fundamental editorial and peer-review standards as regular journal content.

All special-issue manuscripts must:

  • Fall within the journal's stated scope.
  • Undergo appropriate editorial assessment.
  • Receive independent external peer review.
  • Follow the journal's publication-ethics requirements.
  • Be subject to final editorial oversight by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized senior editor.

Guest editors do not have unrestricted authority over publication decisions. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the scientific and editorial integrity of the journal.

15

Peer Review and Research Integrity

Peer review is one component of the journal's broader research-integrity framework.

GJPSR may use appropriate editorial checks before, during, or after peer review, including checks relating to:

  • Plagiarism or text similarity
  • Duplicate publication
  • Image or figure concerns
  • Data integrity
  • Authorship
  • Ethical approval
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Funding disclosure
  • Appropriate use of artificial intelligence
  • Other potential forms of research misconduct

Where serious concerns arise, the journal may investigate the matter in accordance with its Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy.

16

Use of Generative AI in Peer Review

Because submitted manuscripts may contain confidential and unpublished information, reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential manuscript content to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external automated tools unless explicitly authorized by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and integrity of their evaluations. Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools in the peer-review process must comply with the journal's Generative AI Policy.

17

Appeals

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that:

  • A significant factual error occurred during the evaluation.
  • A substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript affected the decision.
  • Relevant information was overlooked.
  • There is evidence of a serious procedural irregularity.

An appeal should provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address the specific grounds for reconsideration.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another appropriately independent senior editor.

18

Complaints

Complaints concerning the editorial or peer-review process should be submitted to the journal's Editorial Office.

GJPSR will consider complaints objectively and seek to resolve legitimate concerns in a timely and appropriate manner.

Complaints involving the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to an appropriate independent authority within the journal's publishing structure.

19

Peer Review Timeline

GJPSR aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards of peer review. The time required for peer review may vary depending on:

  • Availability of suitable reviewers
  • Subject complexity
  • Reviewer response times
  • Number of review rounds
  • Extent of revisions required

The journal does not compromise the quality or independence of peer review solely to meet a predetermined publication timeline.

20

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance, and suitability of the manuscript.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • Advertising
  • Commercial interests
  • Author payment or financial status
  • Personal relationships
  • Institutional pressure
  • Political considerations
  • Reviewer or author influence outside the formal editorial process

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors retain responsibility for editorial decisions within the framework of the journal's policies.

21

Transparency of the Peer-Review Process

GJPSR publicly describes its peer-review model and editorial procedures to promote transparency and accountability in scholarly publishing.

The journal's peer-review process is applied consistently across eligible manuscripts, subject to reasonable differences arising from article type, research methodology, special issues, or ethical considerations.

Summary of the GJPSR Peer-Review Process

Manuscript Submission
Editorial Screening
Scope, Quality and Ethical Assessment
Reviewer Selection
Double-Blind Peer Review
Editorial Assessment of Review Reports
Decision: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
Revision and Further Review, Where Required
Final Editorial Decision
Copyediting and Production
Publication

Contact

For questions concerning peer review, reviewer assignments, editorial decisions, appeals, or complaints:

Global Journal of Pharmaceutical and Scientific Research (GJPSR) editorgjpsr@gmail.com www.gjpsr.com