For Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Research (JPADR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the originality, scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of all published manuscripts.

We sincerely appreciate the valuable time, expertise, and professional judgment contributed by our reviewers in maintaining the quality of the journal.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Evaluate the scientific quality, originality, and significance of the manuscript.
  • Assess whether the manuscript falls within the aims and scope of JPADR.
  • Provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Submit reviews within the requested review period.

Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers should ensure that:

  • They possess adequate expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
  • They have no financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest.
  • They can complete the review within the specified deadline.
  • They agree to maintain complete confidentiality.

If any conflict exists, reviewers should decline the invitation immediately.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should carefully evaluate the following aspects:

1. Originality

  • Is the work novel?
  • Does it contribute new scientific knowledge?
  • Does it add value to existing literature?

2. Scientific Quality

  • Are the objectives clearly stated?
  • Is the study design appropriate?
  • Are the methods scientifically sound?
  • Are statistical analyses appropriate?

3. Results

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Are tables and figures appropriate and properly labelled?

4. Discussion

  • Are the findings interpreted correctly?
  • Are study limitations discussed?
  • Is the discussion supported by relevant literature?

5. References

  • Are references accurate and up to date?
  • Are important studies cited?
  • Is excessive self-citation avoided?

6. Language and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript written in clear English?
  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Are grammar and formatting acceptable?

Preparing the Review Report

A review report should normally include the following sections:

Summary

Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, including its objectives, methodology, and principal findings.

Major Comments

Identify significant scientific issues requiring revision, such as:

  • Study design
  • Methodology
  • Statistical analysis
  • Interpretation of results
  • Missing literature
  • Ethical concerns

Minor Comments

Provide suggestions regarding:

  • Grammar and spelling
  • Typographical errors
  • Figure quality
  • Table formatting
  • Minor clarifications

Whenever possible, comments should refer to page numbers and line numbers.

Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should immediately notify the Editor if they identify:

  • Plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Image manipulation
  • Ethical concerns involving human or animal subjects
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding submitted manuscripts.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with other individuals.
  • Use unpublished data for personal research.
  • Discuss the manuscript without editorial permission.

Editorial Recommendation

Based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor and Editor-in-Chief.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Confidential comments should be used only for issues that should not be shared with the authors, including:

  • Suspected plagiarism
  • Duplicate publication
  • Research misconduct
  • Ethical violations
  • Conflicts of interest

Review Timeline

Reviewers are requested to complete their review within the deadline specified in the invitation email. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Reviewer Recognition

JPADR highly values the contribution of reviewers. The journal may provide reviewer recognition through:

  • Reviewer Certificates
  • Annual Reviewer Acknowledgement
  • Recognition on the journal website
  • Integration with reviewer recognition platforms where applicable

Publication Ethics

JPADR follows internationally accepted publication ethics and encourages reviewers to follow the recommendations of:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

Contact

For any questions regarding the peer review process, please contact the Editorial Office.

Email: editor@jpadr.com