The Journal Pharmaceutical Innovation and Development (JPID) evaluates submitted manuscripts through a peer-review process designed to assess scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to pharmaceutical science and practice.

The journal uses double-anonymous peer review, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during review. Each manuscript proceeding to external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team examines each submission to determine whether it:

• Falls within the journal’s focus and scope.
• Follows the Author Guidelines and manuscript template.
• Presents a sufficiently clear research question and scientific contribution.
• Includes the required manuscript information and ethical declarations.
• Meets basic standards of language, presentation, and research reporting.

Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or rejected without external review if they are outside the journal’s scope or have substantial scientific or ethical deficiencies.

2. Originality and Ethical Assessment

The editorial team evaluates potential plagiarism, inappropriate overlap, duplicate submission, and other concerns about research integrity. Text-similarity screening may support this assessment, but a similarity percentage alone does not determine whether plagiarism has occurred.

Where applicable, editors examine ethical approval, informed consent, trial registration, competing interests, and funding disclosures. Authors may be asked to provide clarification or supporting documentation before the manuscript proceeds.

3. Preparation for Anonymous Review

Authors must provide a separate title page containing author names, affiliations, contact information, and other identifying details.

The manuscript supplied to reviewers should exclude author names and identifying headers, acknowledgments, or document metadata. Information temporarily removed for review must be restored in the final accepted manuscript.

Essential scientific and ethical information should remain sufficient for assessment. Authors should consult the editor when anonymization could compromise the clarity or integrity of reporting.

4. Selection of Reviewers

The handling editor selects reviewers according to their subject expertise, methodological knowledge, and ability to provide an independent assessment.

Reviewers must disclose potential competing interests, including recent collaboration, institutional relationships, financial interests, or personal relationships that could affect impartiality. Reviewers with significant conflicts should decline the invitation.

If authors suggest reviewers, the editor independently assesses their suitability and is not required to invite them.

5. External Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s:

• Originality and contribution to pharmaceutical knowledge or practice.
• Relevance and clarity of the research objectives.
• Appropriateness of the study design and methods.
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
• Compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
• Consistency between results and conclusions.
• Treatment of limitations and relevant literature.
• Clarity of writing, tables, figures, and references.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation to the editor. They must treat the manuscript as confidential and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage.

6. Editorial Decision

The handling editor considers the reviewers’ reports together with an independent assessment of the manuscript. Decisions are not determined solely by the number of favorable or unfavorable recommendations.

The possible decisions are:

Accept
The manuscript meets the journal’s requirements and may proceed to copyediting and production.

Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited changes, such as clarification, additional explanation, or improvements to presentation.

Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial changes to its analysis, interpretation, reporting, or organization. A revised manuscript may undergo another round of external review.

Reject
The manuscript does not meet the journal’s scientific, ethical, or editorial requirements, or its limitations cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

When reports differ substantially or specialist assessment is needed, the editor may seek an additional review.

7. Revision and Resubmission

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

• A revised manuscript.
• A point-by-point response to all editorial and reviewer comments.
• A marked version showing changes, when requested.

Authors should explain where changes were made and provide a reasoned response when they disagree with a recommendation.

Revisions must be submitted through the existing OJS submission record within the deadline specified by the editor. Authors who need additional time should request an extension. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

8. Reassessment and Final Decision

The editor assesses whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to additional reviewers.

Further revisions may be requested when necessary. Final acceptance is issued only after the editor determines that the manuscript meets the journal’s publication requirements.

9. Copyediting and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and preparation for publication. Authors may be asked to clarify wording, verify references, and check the accuracy of tables, figures, and author information.

Authors must review the publication proof carefully and return corrections within the specified timeframe. Substantial changes to the scientific content after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further review.

10. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit and compliance with journal policies. Financial considerations, personal relationships, or institutional affiliations must not influence the outcome.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor. The submitting editor must not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential review deliberations, or make decisions concerning their own manuscript.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence through the journal’s published contact details.

Appeals should identify a substantive scientific misunderstanding or a procedural concern. They are assessed impartially and, where appropriate, by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

12. Review Timeline

The duration of review depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revision required. Authors can monitor progress through their OJS account and contact the editorial team using the submission ID.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.