Journal of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Science

JOURNAL OF DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCE
Integrity Research Journals

ISSN: 2705-2222
DOI: 10.31248/JDPS
Email: jdps@integrityresjournals.org

Peer Review

Peer review is the cornerstone of the journal’s editorial process. Only qualified and experienced researchers and academicians are selected to serve as reviewers. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Science undergo a rigorous peer-review process prior to publication to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and integrity of each research article.
 
Review Model
The Journal of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Science operates a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. All personal details of the author(s) are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers. Similarly, the identities of reviewers are removed from the evaluation forms before comments are forwarded to the author(s). This process ensures transparency, fairness, and objectivity, while minimising potential bias.
 
The Peer-Review Process
Editorial Check
This is the first stage of the review process. Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to ensure it meets the journal’s minimum requirements before being assigned to external reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for the following:
 
  • Level of plagiarism
  • Relevance to the scope of the journal
  • Appropriate use of the English language
  • Accuracy, currency, and proper citation of references
  • Clarity and appropriate citation of tables and figures
  • Correctness and availability of cited references
 
At this stage, the manuscript also undergoes preliminary formatting to ensure compliance with the journal’s layout and style requirements as stated in the Author Guidelines. Manuscripts that meet these requirements are forwarded to qualified external reviewers. Manuscripts that fail to meet these standards may be returned to the author(s) for correction or rejected outright without further consideration.
 
External Reviewers
This is the second stage of the peer-review process. The manuscript is assigned to external reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. A minimum of four reviewers are selected from the editorial board or other academic sources. Each reviewer receives an invitation to review, which includes the manuscript title, abstract, and keywords. Upon acceptance, the full manuscript, evaluation form, and author guidelines are provided.
 
Reviewers are expected to dedicate sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive, detailed feedback to assist the author(s) in improving the quality of the work. Reviewer comments should be comprehensive and extend beyond brief remarks. Reviewers are also required to assess the manuscript based on originality, contribution to the field, technical quality, clarity of presentation, and depth of research.
 
At the conclusion of the review, reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations:
 
  • Requires minor corrections
  • Requires moderate revision
  • Requires major revision
  • Reject (with clearly stated reasons for rejection)
 
Upon receipt of the reviewers’ comments, the editorial office evaluates them and forwards at least two anonymised reviewer reports to the author(s) for revision. If the reviewers’ opinions are significantly conflicting, a third reviewer’s assessment may be requested. An Author Response Form is sent along with the reviewers’ comments to enable authors to respond to each recommendation. Authors are expected to submit the revised manuscript within seven (7) days.
 
This stage of the review process typically takes approximately three weeks, unless delays occur from reviewers or author(s). Manuscripts recommended for rejection by two or more reviewers are rejected immediately.
 
Editor’s Decision
This is the third and final stage of the peer-review process. Upon receipt of the revised manuscript, the editor reviews the original manuscript, revised version, author response form, and all reviewer comments to ensure that the necessary corrections have been adequately addressed. The editor then makes one of the following decisions:
 
  • Accept as submitted
  • Accept with minor corrections
  • Requires major corrections
  • Send revised manuscript for further review
  • Transfer to another journal
  • Reject without further consideration
 
Manuscripts accepted without revision are scheduled for publication. Manuscripts requiring minor or major corrections are returned to the author(s) for revision. The editor reviews the revised manuscript and may request additional revisions if necessary. This process may be repeated until the editor is satisfied with the final version. Failure to implement the requested corrections may result in rejection at this stage.
 
In some cases, the editor may request that the revised manuscript be re-evaluated by one or more of the original reviewers or by a new set of reviewers, particularly if the initial reviews are deemed insufficient. In such cases, the manuscript re-enters the second stage of the review process.
 
Additionally, the editor may recommend transferring the manuscript to a sister journal within Integrity Research Journals or to another appropriate journal. The editor also reserves the right to reject a manuscript outright without further consideration.

Copyright © 2026 Integrity Research Journals. All rights reserved.