REVIEWER'S GUIDELINES

---

To uphold high standards and ensure the publication of reliable scientific manuscripts, every submission must undergo a thorough peer-review process. This review system verifies that manuscripts meet the required quality benchmarks and strengthens the overall standard of scientific research and articles published in the journal. While peer review can be time-consuming, it remains a vital component of credible scientific publishing. The International Journal of Pharmacy and Allied Fields (IJPAF) values its reviewers, who invest their time and expertise to enhance the quality of scientific work.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on several aspects, such as their contribution to the field, accuracy of data, and relevance of the presented information. At IJPAFreviewers are supported and encouraged to provide fair, honest, and constructive comments that assist authors in refining and improving their manuscripts. The goal is to offer feedback that helps authors elevate the scientific value of their work.

IJPAF works with a wide network of reviewers drawn from multiple sources, including editorial board members, their professional contacts, publicly available scientific literature, personal networks, bibliographic databases, and author recommendations. Decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection are largely guided by the reviewers’ evaluations and recommendations.

Author Suggestions for Reviewers

Authors submitting manuscripts to the International Journal of Pharmacy and Allied Fields (IJPAF) may propose potential reviewers. These suggestions must follow the guidelines outlined below:

1. Relevant Expertise and Scholarly Credentials
Proposed reviewers should possess strong subject-matter expertise and a solid academic background related to the manuscript’s research area. Their qualifications should be evident through their professional experience and scholarly publications.

2. Institutional Independence
To maintain impartiality, suggested reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors. Additionally,they should not have been associated with any of the authors’ institutions within the last five years.

3. Valid Contact Information
Authors must provide official institutional or academic email addresses for all suggested reviewers. Personal email IDs (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo,Outlook) will not be accepted.

4. Verified Academic Profiles
Authors should include links to credible academic profile pages—such as university profiles, institutional webpages, ORCID, or other recognized platforms—so the editorial team can verify the reviewers’ expertise and eligibility.

5. Editorial Discretion and Reviewer Selection Rights
The IJPAFeditorial board retains full authority to decide whether or not to use the reviewers suggested by authors. The journal may choose to assign reviewers from its own reviewer pool, use the author-recommended reviewers, or apply a combination of both. The final decision regarding reviewer selection rests solely with the journal.

6. Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Suggested reviewers must be free from any conflicts of interest, including close professional collaboration, personal relationships, shared projects, or financial connections with the authors, which may compromise the objectivity of the review.

7. Reviewer Re-evaluation in Case of Disputes
If authors contest an editorial decision, especially in the case of rejection, the manuscript may be forwarded to two additional independent reviewers. The final verdict will be made based on their evaluations and recommendations.

Guidelines for Reviewers on Accepting or Rejecting Manuscripts

Reviewers are expected to evaluate each manuscript fairly and without any personal bias toward the authors.

Feedback should be constructive, with the intention of helping authors strengthen and refine their work rather than discouraging them.

All assessments must remain objective, ensuring that the reviewer’s judgment is based solely on the scientific quality and relevance of the manuscript.

Reviewers must maintain strict anonymity and avoid including any information that could disclose their identity.

If a reviewer has any personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest with the authors or the subject matter, they should decline participation in the review process.

Reviewers are required to keep the manuscript and its core findings confidential, refraining from sharing or discussing them with others.

Reviewers may convey their comments directly through the journal's review system or communicate with the editor when needed. They must also complete the official review form as part of the evaluation process.

Key Questions for Reviewers to Consider

Does the manuscript address a meaningful and relevant topic that aligns with the scope of IJPAF?

Has the author followed the journal’s submission guidelines and instructions properly?

Do the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and conclusion clearly and accurately represent the main focus of the manuscript?

Is the manuscript well-structured, clearly written, and free from major grammatical or language errors?

Are the objectives appropriate for the subject matter, and have the authors applied the correct methods and procedures?

Where applicable, have the authors obtained the necessary ethical permissions and patient or participant consents?

Are the results presented with appropriate statistical analysis, and do the conclusions logically follow from the data?

Is there any indication of data manipulation, selective reporting, or bias in the interpretation of findings?

Are the tables and figures clearly presented, properly labeled, and easy to understand without additional explanation?

Are the conclusions supported by valid evidence and relevant data?

Are the references current, relevant, and formatted according to the journal’s citation style? Is any essential or landmark literature missing?

Reviewers may also refer to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for peer reviewers for additional guidance.