Guidelines To Peer Reviewers

Peer review is the backbone of scholarly publishing. The objectives of these guidelines are to help peer-reviewers and provide an ethical overview. Reading these guidelines may help the reviewers find answers to most queries and provide guidance in completing a peer-review report in a thorough and prompt way. If you have any further queries, please write to editor@pharmtechnova.com.

Purpose of Review:

  • To help authors improve their manuscripts by applying your professional expertise to assist others.
  • To assist in maintaining a good, meticulous peer-review process resulting in the publication of high-quality papers.
  • To make the author aware of any additional literature that may provide useful comparison or clarification of an approach.

Guidelines

  • All manuscripts submitted to JPTN are subject to double-blind peer review. Reviewers should consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a manuscript and throughout the peer-review process.
  • Reviewers should undertake an objective review and not compromise author anonymity in a double-anonymous review. All reviewers must accept the terms and conditions of peer-review before starting a review.
  • Reviewers should remain impartial even if they recognize the work from preprints, institutional repositories, or other sources.
  • Respond to peer-review requests in a timely manner, particularly if unable to complete the review, to avoid delaying the process.
  • Maintain confidentiality regarding the identity of the authors and the content of the manuscript.
  • Provide objective and constructive comments without hostility or derogatory language.
  • Refer to the Instructions for Authors to check if the manuscript meets submission criteria.
  • Complete the review and indicate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the manuscript by uploading comments on the online peer-review platform (OJS peer review system).
  • Make a recommendation to the editor regarding publication as follows:
    • Accept - suitable for publication in its current form.
    • Revisions - ready for publication after light revisions. List the revisions recommended.
    • Reject - not suitable for publication, or if required revisions are too extensive. Detailed comments should include:
      • Comments suitable for transmission to the authors.
      • Clarifications for unclear points.
      • Suggestions on shortening or improving the manuscript if needed.
      • Corrections to English where technical meaning is unclear.
      • Submission of comments to the editor for forwarding to authors.
      • Inform the editor if unable to complete the report in the agreed timeframe.
      • Highlight any potential conflicts of interest affecting the manuscript.