The Journal Pharmaceutical Innovation and Development (JPID) values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, credibility, and relevance of published research. Reviewers provide independent assessments that help editors make informed decisions and authors improve their manuscripts.

These guidelines should be read alongside the journal’s Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, and Plagiarism Policy.

1. Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers should consider whether they:

1. Have appropriate expertise to assess the subject and research methods.
2. Can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
3. Have any competing interests that could affect their impartiality.
4. Potential conflicts include recent collaboration with the authors, close personal relationships, institutional connections, financial interests, or direct academic competition. Reviewers should disclose potential conflicts to the editor before accepting the assignment.
5. If the manuscript falls outside the reviewer’s expertise or the deadline cannot be met, the invitation should be declined promptly. Alternative reviewers may be suggested, but their selection remains the editor’s responsibility.

 2. Confidentiality and Anonymous Review

JPID uses double-anonymous peer review. Reviewers should respect the anonymity of authors and avoid attempting to identify them. If an author’s identity becomes apparent, reviewers should inform the editor when this creates a potential conflict.

Manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, and editorial correspondence must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not:

Share submission materials without editorial permission.

Contact authors directly about the manuscript.

Use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Delegate the review to another person without authorization.

Upload confidential materials to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality safeguards.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review is completed.

3. Accessing the Manuscript in OJS

Reviewers should access the assignment through the invitation link or their JPID OJS account.

After reviewing the invitation details, reviewers should accept or decline the assignment through the available response options. Once accepted, they should download the manuscript and supplementary materials, read the review instructions, and complete the review form provided.

Button names and the sequence of screens may vary depending on the OJS version.

4. Main Assessment Criteria

Relevance and Originality

Assess whether the manuscript falls within JPID’s pharmaceutical scope and makes a meaningful contribution. Consider whether the research question is clearly defined and the claimed novelty is supported by relevant literature.

Title, Abstract, and Keywords

Check whether the title accurately represents the study. The abstract should summarize the objective, methods, principal findings, and conclusion without overstating the results. Keywords should reflect the manuscript’s main topics.

Introduction

Evaluate whether the introduction establishes the research context, critically discusses relevant studies, identifies a knowledge gap, and states a clear objective.

Research Methods

Assess whether the methods are appropriate, sufficiently detailed, and capable of addressing the research question.

Depending on the study, consider:

1. Study design, sampling, and eligibility criteria.
2. Identification and quality of materials, reagents, and equipment.
3. Experimental controls, replication, and reproducibility.
4. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments. 
5. Suitability of statistical methods and treatment of uncertainty.
6. Ethical approval, informed consent, and participant protection.
7. Transparency of literature searches and study selection in review articles.
8. Distinguish essential methodological concerns from additional work that would extend the study beyond its stated objectives.

Results

Determine whether the findings are presented clearly and consistently with the methods. Check the agreement between the text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials.

Consider whether numerical results, units, sample sizes, and statistical reporting are internally consistent. Identify missing information that prevents a reliable interpretation.

Discussion

Evaluate whether the discussion explains the findings, compares them with relevant evidence, and addresses limitations. Conclusions about effectiveness, safety, causation, or practical application should remain proportionate to the study design and results.

Conclusion

Check whether the conclusion answers the research objective and is supported by the evidence. It should not introduce new results or make unsupported generalizations.

References and Presentation

Assess the relevance and accuracy of citations, the clarity of writing, and the readability of tables and figures. References should follow JPID’s required style.

Reviewers should identify language problems that obscure scientific meaning. Extensive language editing is not expected.

5. Considerations for Pharmaceutical Research

Reviewers should apply criteria appropriate to the manuscript’s field.

For formulation and drug-delivery studies, consider characterization methods, performance testing, controls, and whether stability claims are supported by the study conditions.

For pharmacological and toxicological studies, examine dose selection, experimental models, outcome measures, and the relationship between efficacy and safety claims.

For analytical studies, consider whether validation is appropriate to the method’s intended purpose.

For natural-product research, examine biological material identification, extraction procedures, characterization, and reproducibility.

For clinical and pharmacy-practice studies, assess the relevance of outcomes, potential confounding, participant selection, and the practical significance of the findings.

Not every criterion applies to every manuscript. Reviewers should explain which issues are essential to evaluating the particular study.

6. Preparing the Review Report

A useful report should begin with a short summary of the manuscript and an overall assessment of its contribution.

Comments should then distinguish between:

1. Major comments: Issues affecting validity, interpretation, reproducibility, ethical acceptability, or the central contribution.
2. Minor comments: Localized matters such as unclear wording, inconsistent terminology, missing units, formatting errors, or incomplete captions.
3. Number comments and identify relevant sections, pages, tables, or figures where possible. Explain why each substantive concern matters and suggest a practical way to address it.
4. Feedback must remain professional, specific, and constructive. Avoid personal remarks, unsupported criticism, and unnecessary requests for citations to the reviewer’s own work.

7. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, inappropriate image manipulation, or other ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor with specific supporting details.

Reviewers should describe the concern without making unsupported accusations. They should not contact the authors’ institution or conduct an independent investigation on behalf of the journal.

The editor is responsible for assessing the concern and determining the appropriate response.

8. Recommendations

Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their assessment:

1. Accept: The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial requirements.
2. Minor Revision: Limited changes are needed and are unlikely to alter the main findings
3. Major Revision: Substantial clarification, reanalysis, or revision is necessary before the manuscript can be considered further.
4. Reject: Fundamental problems or insufficient contribution prevent the manuscript from meeting publication requirements.
5. The recommendation should be consistent with the written report. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision; the final decision remains with the editor.

9. Submitting the Review

Submit the completed review form and recommendation through OJS. Where available, use separate fields for comments to authors and confidential comments to the editor.

Scientific concerns that authors need to address should normally appear in the author-facing report. Confidential comments may explain ethical concerns, competing interests, or sensitive matters requiring editorial attention.

Before uploading an annotated manuscript, remove identifying information from comments, tracked changes, filenames, and document properties. Complete the final submission step so that the editor receives the report.

10. Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

When invited to assess a revision, reviewers should examine the revised manuscript together with the authors’ point-by-point response.

Determine whether the original concerns have been adequately addressed and whether the revisions introduce new problems. Avoid adding unrelated requirements unless they are necessary to address a significant issue that was previously overlooked or created by the revision.

11. Deadlines and Communication

Reviewers should meet the agreed deadline or notify the editor promptly if an extension is needed. Questions about the assignment, missing files, or the review process should be directed to the editorial team through OJS or the contact details in the invitation.

JPID appreciates fair, timely, and evidence-based reviews that strengthen pharmaceutical research and support responsible scholarly communication.