Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation Policy

Peer Review Process and Editorial Evaluation

The Journal of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Research (JPADR) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, transparent, confidential, and unbiased peer-review process to ensure publication of high-quality scholarly research. The journal follows internationally accepted ethical publishing standards and peer-review best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and other recognized scholarly publishing organizations.

JPADR follows a Double-Blind Peer Review model in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This approach minimizes potential bias and promotes objective scientific evaluation based solely on the quality, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical standards of the research.

1. Objectives of Peer Review

Peer review serves as an essential quality assurance mechanism that supports scientific integrity and assists editors in making informed publication decisions. The review process is designed to improve manuscripts while ensuring that published research meets the journal's scientific, methodological, and ethical standards.

The objectives of peer review include:

• Evaluating scientific quality and originality.
• Assessing methodological rigor.
• Verifying ethical compliance.
• Improving manuscript quality through constructive feedback.
• Validating research findings.
• Supporting evidence-based editorial decisions.
• Maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Every manuscript submitted to JPADR undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review. This preliminary evaluation determines whether the manuscript meets the journal's minimum scientific, ethical, and technical requirements.

The Editorial Office evaluates:

• Scope and relevance to the journal.
• Compliance with author guidelines.
• Ethics approval documentation.
• Conflict of interest disclosures.
• Completeness of submission files.
• Scientific quality and readability.
• Language suitability for peer review.
• Plagiarism and similarity screening.

Similarity screening may utilize:

• iThenticate.
• Turnitin.
• Crossref Similarity Check.
• Other recognized plagiarism detection systems.

Manuscripts failing to satisfy minimum editorial requirements may be returned to the authors for technical correction or rejected without external peer review where substantial deficiencies are identified.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review System

JPADR employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure impartial scientific assessment and reduce potential bias arising from author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, or academic reputation.

During peer review:

• Reviewer identities remain confidential.
• Author identities remain confidential.
• Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit.
• Reviewers evaluate anonymized manuscripts.
• Confidentiality is maintained throughout the editorial process.

Authors should remove identifying information from manuscripts, supplementary files, figures, acknowledgements, and document properties prior to submission whenever required to preserve reviewer blinding.

4. Number of Reviewers per Manuscript

Each manuscript is generally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary to ensure comprehensive scientific evaluation.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when:

• Reviewer recommendations substantially differ.
• Specialized subject expertise is required.
• Statistical review is necessary.
• Methodological evaluation requires additional expertise.
• Ethical concerns require further assessment.
• Editorial clarification is needed before a final decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Handling Editor may seek additional expert opinions at any stage of the editorial process whenever considered appropriate.

5. Reviewer Selection Process

Reviewers are selected using objective criteria to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated by independent experts possessing appropriate scientific knowledge and research experience.

Reviewer selection considers:

• Subject-specific expertise.
• Academic qualifications.
• Research and publication record.
• Previous peer-review performance.
• Institutional affiliation.
• Professional experience.
• Absence of conflicts of interest.

Potential reviewers may be identified through:

• Editorial Board recommendations.
• Published scientific literature.
• Reviewer databases.
• Scholarly indexing platforms.
• Professional societies.
• Author suggestions where appropriate.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered; however, the Editorial Office retains full discretion regarding reviewer selection and may accept or decline suggested reviewers without providing justification.

6. Reviewer Qualification Criteria

JPADR appoints reviewers who possess appropriate academic, scientific, and professional expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript. Reviewer selection is intended to ensure objective, knowledgeable, and constructive evaluation of scientific work while maintaining the highest standards of publication quality.

Reviewers are expected to possess:

• Relevant academic or professional qualifications.
• Subject-specific expertise.
• Research and publication experience.
• Understanding of scientific methodology.
• Knowledge of research ethics and publication ethics.
• Ability to provide constructive and objective feedback.

Reviewers may include:

• Researchers.
• Academicians.
• Clinicians.
• Industry experts.
• Regulatory professionals.
• Methodologists.
• Biostatisticians and statistical reviewers where appropriate.

The Editorial Office may periodically assess reviewer performance based on review quality, timeliness, professionalism, responsiveness, and adherence to ethical standards.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Expectations

Reviewers play a critical role in safeguarding the quality, integrity, and credibility of scientific publications. Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and completed within the agreed review period.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective and constructive scientific feedback.
• Evaluate manuscripts fairly and professionally.
• Maintain strict confidentiality.
• Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
• Avoid personal criticism of authors.
• Identify ethical concerns when detected.
• Submit reviews within agreed timelines.

Reviewers should evaluate:

• Originality and novelty.
• Scientific validity.
• Study methodology.
• Ethical compliance.
• Statistical analysis.
• Interpretation of results.
• Clarity of presentation.
• Appropriateness of references.
• Relevance to the journal's scope.

Reviewers must not:

• Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
• Share manuscripts with unauthorized individuals.
• Contact authors directly regarding submitted manuscripts.
• Delegate reviews without prior editorial approval.
• Permit confidential information to be disclosed.

8. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to JPADR are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and individuals involved in manuscript handling must preserve confidentiality throughout and after completion of the peer-review process.

Editors and reviewers must:

• Maintain strict confidentiality.
• Avoid unauthorized disclosure of manuscript content.
• Protect unpublished data, ideas, and intellectual property.
• Use manuscript information solely for editorial evaluation.
• Secure confidential files appropriately.

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the peer-review process has been completed or the manuscript has been rejected or published.

9. Conflict of Interest During Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationships or circumstances that may compromise—or reasonably appear to compromise—their impartiality during the evaluation of a manuscript.

Potential conflicts of interest may include:

• Financial interests.
• Employment relationships.
• Institutional affiliations.
• Personal relationships.
• Academic competition.
• Recent collaboration with the authors.
• Intellectual or professional rivalry.

Individuals with significant conflicts of interest should decline the review invitation. Editors may reassign manuscripts whenever actual or perceived conflicts could affect objective editorial evaluation.

10. Peer Review Timeline

JPADR strives to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining rigorous scientific and ethical evaluation. Although every effort is made to adhere to the following timelines, actual processing times may vary depending on manuscript complexity and reviewer availability.

Editorial timelines may vary depending on:

• Reviewer availability.
• Complexity of the manuscript.
• Number of review rounds required.
• Extent of author revisions.
• Requirement for statistical or methodological review.
• Editorial workload.

11. Editorial Decisions

Following completion of peer review, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor evaluates reviewer comments together with the scientific merit, ethical compliance, methodological quality, and relevance of the manuscript before making an editorial decision.

Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully; however, the final editorial decision is based on the overall assessment of the manuscript and the journal's editorial standards.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept without Revision – The manuscript is accepted in its current form.
• Minor Revision – Limited revisions are required before acceptance.
• Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required, followed by further evaluation.
• Reject with Resubmission Option – A substantially revised manuscript may be considered as a new submission.
• Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, ethical, or editorial standards.

Editors may also:

• Request additional expert review.
• Seek statistical or methodological review.
• Request clarification from authors.
• Consult Editorial Board members.
• Override reviewer recommendations when scientifically justified.

12. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision request are expected to address reviewer comments comprehensively and submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office.

Authors should submit:

• A revised manuscript.
• A detailed point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
• A document highlighting all revisions made.
• Justification where reviewer recommendations cannot reasonably be implemented.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, evaluated by additional reviewers, or assessed directly by the Editorial Team depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Additional revision rounds may be requested if further clarification or scientific improvements are considered necessary.

13. Final Decision Authority

The final decision regarding publication rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated Handling Editor acting on behalf of the journal.

Editorial decisions are made independently and objectively after consideration of reviewer reports, editorial assessment, ethical compliance, and the journal's publication standards.

The Editorial Team reserves the right to:

• Reject manuscripts at any stage of editorial processing.
• Request additional scientific information.
• Request supporting documentation.
• Investigate ethical concerns.
• Seek independent expert opinions.
• Withdraw acceptance if research misconduct is identified before publication.

14. Appeals Process

Authors who believe that a significant error occurred during editorial evaluation may submit a formal appeal requesting reconsideration of the editorial decision.

Appeals may be considered when:

• A significant misunderstanding occurred during review.
• Reviewer comments contain demonstrable factual errors.
• Important scientific evidence was overlooked.
• Procedural irregularities are identified.

An appeal should:

• Be submitted in writing.
• Provide a detailed scientific justification.
• Include supporting evidence where appropriate.
• Address reviewer comments respectfully and objectively.

Appeals may undergo independent editorial assessment, consultation with Editorial Board members, or additional external peer review where appropriate.

15. Reviewer Recognition Policy

JPADR recognizes the valuable contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, credibility, and integrity of the journal. The Editorial Office encourages reviewer engagement while preserving the confidentiality of the double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless disclosure is expressly agreed upon by the reviewer or permitted under future journal policies supporting open peer review.

Reviewer Recognition

Subject to journal policy, reviewers may receive recognition for their contributions through:

• Reviewer acknowledgement certificates.
• Letters of appreciation.
• Annual reviewer recognition initiatives.
• Recognition in journal communications where appropriate.

Publons / Web of Science Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers may choose to record completed peer-review activities on recognized reviewer recognition platforms, including Publons or Web of Science Reviewer Recognition, provided that reviewer confidentiality and journal policies are fully respected.

16. Ethical Oversight During Peer Review

JPADR is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics throughout the peer-review process. Editors and reviewers play an essential role in identifying potential ethical concerns before publication and are encouraged to report any suspected research or publication misconduct.

Ethical concerns identified during editorial evaluation are handled confidentially and fairly in accordance with internationally recognized publication ethics guidance, institutional policies, and applicable legal requirements.

Editors and reviewers are encouraged to report concerns regarding:

• Plagiarism and duplicate publication.
• Data fabrication or falsification.
• Image manipulation or inappropriate image processing.
• Insufficient or fabricated ethics approval.
• Absence of informed consent where required.
• Citation manipulation or inappropriate referencing.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Artificial intelligence misuse.
• Authorship disputes or inappropriate authorship practices.
• Research misconduct of any other form.

17. Artificial Intelligence and Peer Review

JPADR recognizes the increasing availability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and encourages their responsible and ethical use. However, AI technologies must never replace the independent scientific judgment, professional expertise, or accountability of editors and peer reviewers.

Editors and reviewers should not use AI systems to:

• Replace independent scholarly evaluation.
• Generate complete peer-review reports without human oversight.
• Delegate editorial decision-making.
• Upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished data into publicly accessible AI platforms.
• Disclose confidential manuscript information through automated systems.

Limited AI-assisted use may be acceptable when:

• Confidentiality is fully protected.
• Human reviewers remain fully responsible for all scientific judgments.
• AI tools are used only to support—not replace—editorial evaluation.
• Applicable journal policies and institutional requirements are followed.

18. Commitment to Ethical and Transparent Peer Review

JPADR is dedicated to maintaining a peer-review system that is fair, rigorous, confidential, transparent, and accountable. The journal continually evaluates and refines its editorial procedures to improve efficiency while preserving scientific integrity and publication quality.

JPADR remains committed to:

• Fair and impartial editorial evaluation.
• Rigorous scientific peer review.
• Reviewer accountability.
• Confidential manuscript handling.
• Editorial independence.
• Research integrity.
• Ethical publication practices.
• Timely communication with authors and reviewers.
• Continuous improvement of editorial processes.
• Compliance with internationally recognized publication ethics standards.

References

1. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and COPE Core Practices.
2. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
3. Web of Science. Reviewer Recognition Service and Peer Review Standards.