Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Phytopharmacological Research follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential to one another throughout the evaluation. This multi-stage system is designed to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and scientific quality of every article the journal publishes.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal must represent original work, must not be under review elsewhere, and must not have been published previously in any form. The entire submission, review, and production workflow is managed through a secure digital platform.

Stages of the Review Process

Stage	Description	Key Focus and Responsibility
1. Initial Editorial Pre-Check	As soon as a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Associate Editor carries out a preliminary evaluation.	This stage centers on confirming that the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, meets accepted ethical research standards (such as ethical approvals and informed consent), and passes an initial plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that fail to meet these standards may be desk-rejected at this point.
2. Subject Expert Assignment and Reviewer Selection	Manuscripts that clear the pre-check stage are forwarded to a qualified Associate Editor (or International Editor) who serves as the subject-matter expert for that submission and performs a detailed internal review of its methodology and scientific foundation.	The Associate Editor confirms the manuscript's overall suitability and is responsible for identifying and inviting at least two independent external reviewers whose expertise closely aligns with the manuscript's subject matter.
3. External Peer Review	At least two qualified external reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently, assessing its scientific quality, methodological soundness, originality, and clarity of presentation.	Reviewers submit their reports and recommendations to the Associate Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. The identities of both authors and reviewers remain fully blinded throughout this stage.
4. Final Decision-Making	The Editor-in-Chief renders the final decision, taking into account the recommendation of the assigned Associate Editor as well as the complete set of reports submitted by the external reviewers.	Acceptance requires at least two favorable reviews. Should reviewers' recommendations conflict — for example, one recommending acceptance and another recommending rejection — a third qualified reviewer is brought in to help resolve the disagreement. Decisions relying on a single review are made only in rare and exceptional circumstances, when securing a second qualified reviewer proves genuinely impossible (fewer than 5% of all reviewed cases), and any such decision must be fully documented and justified by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Accept after Minor Revisions: Authors are required to address all reviewer comments within the timeframe specified by the journal.
Reconsider after Major Revisions: Authors must provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment. As a general rule, manuscripts may undergo up to two rounds of substantial revision.
Reject and Encourage Resubmission: Manuscripts requiring significant additional experiments or further data collection are rejected, with an invitation to resubmit as a new manuscript once the necessary work has been completed.
Reject: Manuscripts found to contain serious scientific flaws, substantial ethical violations, or an insufficient original contribution are rejected without the option of resubmission.

Authors are expected to respond to every reviewer comment individually and to provide clear justification wherever they disagree with a reviewer's assessment in their response letter.

Review Timeline and Complaints Policy

Timeline: The peer review process generally takes between two and three months, depending on how promptly reviewers respond and the overall complexity of the manuscript.
Complaints Policy: The journal is committed to handling all complaints in a fair and constructive manner. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may do so by contacting the Editor-in-Chief directly. Complaints concerning journal policies, procedures, or editorial conduct are acknowledged within six working days, with progress updates provided every two weeks until the matter is fully resolved. The Editor-in-Chief's ruling on any complaint is considered final.

Becoming a Reviewer: Qualified experts interested in joining the journal as peer reviewers are welcome to contact the editorial office at [email protected]