Reviewer's Guidelines

Peer review is done to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. Though peer review is a time-consuming task, it is essential to ensure the quality of scientific journals and manuscripts published therein. Journal of Pharmaceutical, Medical, Health and Allied Sciences (JPMHAS) is very grateful and acknowledges the time and efforts invested by the Reviewer in the review process.

The reviewer is bestowed with responsibility of critically reading and evaluating the manuscript in hand. They are encouraged to provide respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their manuscript. It this process of peer reviewing, Reviewers are requested to comment in a way that encourages authors to improve the strength and quality of the work.

Journal of Pharmaceutical, Medical, Health and Allied Sciences (JPMHAS) uses a wide range of sources to identify potential reviewers. The sources include the members of the editorial board, their contacts, scientific work available in public domains, personal contacts, bibliographic databases, and potential reviewers as suggested by the authors. Reviewers’ assessment and their comments play a major role in the decision regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts

Reviewers must consider the following points while accepting and reviewing a manuscript

  • Reviews must be conducted fairly and objectively

  • Reviewers must always avoid personal criticism of the author.

  • Criticism should always be objective, and a possible way out should be suggested by the Reviewer.

  • Reviewer must always hide their identity. They must avoid any clues that can reveal their identity

  • Reviewer must decline the offer to peer review if any conflicting interest arises

  • They must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the process as a whole

  • Reviewer needs to fill out a form during the peer review of the manuscript

  • Reviewer can also comment or write to the editor

Reviewers are requested to consider the following points in reviewing any manuscript

  • Is the topic of the manuscript significant and appropriate for the Journal?

  • Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?

  • Do the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions reflect the core issues of the manuscript?

  • Is the manuscript well written and free of major grammatical errors?

  • Is the aim clearly stated, and were the methodologies followed accordingly?

  • Is the research ethical and does it have appropriate consents from patients, boards or governments, whichever is applicable?

  • Were the results obtained statistically analysed and a conclusion drawn as per statistical principles and interpretation?

  • Is there any clue about manipulation in data or bias in drawing a conclusion?

  •  Are all tables and figures clearly labelled, self-descriptive, understandable by users and absolutely necessary?

  • Are conclusions supported with facts and data?

  • Are the references cited appropriate to support the manuscript? Do the references cited follow the reference style of the Journal? Is any landmark work or citation missing in the manuscript?

Download COPE Guidelines for your reference COPE Guidelines for Peer Reviewers