Peer Review Process
The IOASD Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences is committed to ensuring the quality, reliability, and scientific integrity of the research it publishes through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and independent peer review process. Peer review serves as a critical component of scholarly publishing by evaluating the scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and clinical or pharmaceutical relevance of submitted manuscripts.
The journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process. This approach helps promote impartial evaluation and minimizes the potential for bias.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.
During this stage, the Editorial Office and the Editor-in-Chief evaluate whether the manuscript:
· Falls within the journal's aims and scope.
· Demonstrates originality and scientific significance.
· Addresses a relevant question in medical, pharmaceutical, clinical, biomedical, or allied health sciences.
· Employs an appropriate study design and research methodology.
· Complies with the journal's submission requirements.
· Meets acceptable standards of scientific writing and presentation.
· Satisfies the journal's editorial and publication requirements.
Where necessary, authors may be asked to correct formatting or provide additional information before the manuscript proceeds to peer review.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's minimum editorial standards or fall outside its scope may be declined without external review.
Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial editorial assessment are forwarded for external peer review.
The journal follows a double-blind peer review model in which neither authors nor reviewers are informed of each other's identities during the review process.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject area of the submitted research. Additional reviewers may be invited when specialized knowledge is required or when further independent assessment is considered appropriate.
Reviewer recommendations support the editorial decision-making process but do not determine the final outcome.
Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on their:
· Academic qualifications.
· Subject expertise.
· Research experience.
· Publication record.
· Professional competence in the relevant field.
The Editorial Office seeks reviewers capable of providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations while maintaining the confidentiality of the review process.
Reasonable steps are taken to avoid assigning reviewers where actual or potential conflicts of interest may affect the impartiality of the review.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts on the basis of their overall scientific quality and contribution to the field.
Evaluation generally includes consideration of:
· Originality and scientific contribution.
· Clinical, pharmaceutical, or public health relevance where applicable.
· Importance of the research question.
· Appropriateness of the study design and methodology.
· Quality and validity of data collection and statistical analysis.
· Interpretation of results and strength of the conclusions.
· Adequacy of the literature review and referencing.
· Compliance with accepted scientific reporting standards.
· Clarity, organization, and overall presentation of the manuscript.
· Suitability for publication in the journal.
Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that assist authors in improving the quality of their manuscripts.
Comments should focus on the scientific content of the manuscript and should not include personal criticism or discriminatory remarks.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of the journal.
Reviewers are expected to:
· Accept review assignments only within their area of expertise.
· Conduct reviews objectively, fairly, and without personal bias.
· Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
· Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
· Decline review invitations if impartial evaluation cannot be ensured or if the review cannot be completed within the requested timeframe.
· Provide constructive, well-reasoned, and evidence-based recommendations.
· Identify relevant published literature where appropriate.
· Inform the Editorial Office of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, data falsification, image manipulation, or other concerns affecting research integrity.
· Refrain from using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, academic, or commercial benefit.
· Not delegate the review to another individual without prior approval from the Editorial Office.
Editorial Decisions
Following completion of peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates the reviewer reports together with the overall scientific merit of the manuscript.
Editorial decisions include:
Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.
Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before acceptance.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo further peer review.
Reject: The manuscript does not satisfy the journal's scientific, editorial, or publication standards.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.
Revision and Resubmission
Authors invited to revise their manuscripts should address all reviewer and editorial comments thoroughly.
Revised submissions should include:
· A revised manuscript; and
· A detailed response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
Where appropriate, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers before a final editorial decision is reached.
Final Acceptance and Production
After acceptance, manuscripts enter the production process, which may include:
· Copyediting.
· Technical editing.
· Typesetting and formatting.
· Proofreading.
· Author proof approval.
· Final publication.
Minor editorial or formatting changes may be made during production provided they do not alter the scientific content or conclusions of the article.
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and associated documents are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer review process.
Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose or use unpublished information except where necessary for legitimate editorial purposes.
Appeals
Authors may submit a written appeal if they believe an editorial decision resulted from a factual error or procedural concern.
Appeals should include supporting evidence and will be reviewed independently by the Editorial Office. Additional expert evaluation may be sought where appropriate.
Submission of an appeal does not guarantee that the original editorial decision will be changed.
Related Policies
This Peer Review Process should be read together with the journal's:
Commitment to Quality
The IOASD Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, and independent peer review process that supports scientific excellence, research integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing. Through objective expert evaluation and careful editorial assessment, the journal strives to publish reliable, high-quality research that advances medicine, pharmacy, biomedical sciences, public health, and related healthcare disciplines.
