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

Reviewers Guidelines

Overview
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing in the Journal of Drugs and Pharmaceutical Science. Only qualified and experienced researchers and academicians are selected to serve as reviewers. The peer-review process assists editors in making informed editorial decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviewers should accept assignments only within their areas of expertise and must be willing to devote sufficient time to conducting a thorough and critical evaluation. Reviewer reports should be comprehensive and extend well beyond a few brief comments. Reviewers are also expected to adhere to the guidelines outlined below.
 
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest to the editor and, where such conflicts are significant, should decline to review the manuscript. Reviewers should not accept a review invitation if they:
  • Have recently published with or worked alongside the author(s)
  • Currently share or have recently shared an institutional affiliation with the author(s)
  • Collaborate or have recently collaborated with the author(s)
  • Have a close personal relationship with the author(s)
  • Have a financial interest in the manuscript under review
  • Have previously discussed the manuscript with the author(s)
Any other relevant interests not listed above must also be declared and will be assessed by the editor.
 
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under peer review must be treated as strictly confidential. They are provided to reviewers in confidence solely for critical evaluation. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss their contents with anyone during or after the review process. If consultation with colleagues is necessary, reviewers must first obtain permission from the handling editor and disclose the names of the consulted colleagues, ensuring that confidentiality is fully maintained.
 
Plagiarism
Plagiarism involves the use or close imitation of another author’s language, ideas, or work without proper acknowledgement. Reviewers must not use any information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, professional, or organisational advantage, or in a way that could disadvantage or discredit others.
 
Fairness
Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations respectfully and professionally. Hostile, inflammatory, libellous, or derogatory personal comments are unacceptable. Reviews must be objective and free from bias related to:
  • The origin of the manuscript
  • The religious, political, or cultural beliefs of the author(s)
  • The nationality, gender, race, or ethnicity of the author(s)
 
Timeliness
Reviewers should accept review assignments only when they can commit adequate time to the task. Completed reviews should be submitted within the timeframe specified by the handling editor.
 
Review Reports
The primary purpose of peer review is to help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewer reports should provide constructive and detailed feedback, particularly when revisions are recommended. Reviews should focus on the scientific merit of the manuscript, including the rigour of the methodology and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript but should suggest necessary corrections and improvements.
In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should consider whether:
  • The abstract accurately summarises the study
  • The language is clear and comprehensible
  • The literature review, research gap, and objectives are appropriate
  • The methods and study design are suitable
  • The statistical analyses are appropriate
  • The results are clearly presented with appropriate tables and figures
  • The discussion is coherent and supported by relevant references
  • The conclusions are supported by the results
  • The limitations of the study are adequately acknowledged
 
Recommendations
While the final publication decision rests with the editor, reviewers are requested to recommend one of the following actions:
  • Accept as submitted
  • Requires minor corrections
  • Requires moderate revision
  • Requires major revision
  • Reject (with reasons)
All recommendations should be supported by clear evidence and constructive, content-based arguments.
 
References for Further Reading

Copyright © 2026 Integrity Research Journals. All rights reserved.