The Journal of Pharmacology and Drug Development (JPDD) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and publishing high-quality, scientifically valid research. The peer review process is fundamental to this commitment.
Our process is designed to be rigorous, fair, and impartial, adhering to the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
JPDD operates a double-blind peer review policy.
This means that the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers.
Conversely, the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.
Each manuscript is typically evaluated by three independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. This ensures a thorough and balanced assessment of every submission.
All submissions are managed through our online editorial system, Editorial Manager. The process generally follows these steps:
Submission: The corresponding author submits the manuscript and all related files (including a separate, non-anonymized title page) via Editorial Manager.
Initial Editorial Check: The Editorial Office performs an initial technical and ethical check to ensure the manuscript adheres to the journal's scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical policies.
Editor Assignment: If the manuscript passes the initial check, it is assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, who then assigns it to a handling Editor with appropriate expertise.
Reviewer Invitation: The handling Editor invites at least three qualified, independent reviewers. The system's reviewer database and the editor's expertise are used to select potential reviewers.
Review Conducted: Reviewers access the anonymized manuscript via Editorial Manager. They assess the manuscript's originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, and significance to the field. They then submit a detailed report and a recommendation (e.g., Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject).
Editorial Decision: The handling Editor carefully weighs the feedback from all reviewers. A final decision is made and communicated to the authors, along with the anonymized reviewer comments.
Revisions: If revisions are requested, authors are given a specific timeframe to revise their manuscript. They must submit the revised version along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for a second round of review.
Anonymizing Your Manuscript
To facilitate the double-blind review, authors must submit an anonymized manuscript file. Please ensure the following:
The main manuscript file (including the abstract, main text, figures, and tables) contains no author names, affiliations, or any other identifying information.
Author details, affiliations, and acknowledgements should be provided only on a separate Title Page file, which will not be shared with reviewers.
Remove any author-identifying information from the file's properties.
When citing your own previous work, use the third person (e.g., "as Smith (2020) has shown..." instead of "as we have shown (2020)...").
Suggesting and Excluding Reviewers
Authors can help guide the peer review process. When submitting your manuscript in Editorial Manager, you will have the option to:
Suggest Potential Reviewers: You are welcome to suggest qualified individuals to review your manuscript. Please provide their full names, institutional email addresses, and, if possible, an ORCID or Scopus ID. This helps our editors verify their identity and expertise.
Request Reviewer Exclusions: You may request the exclusion of specific individuals as peer reviewers. This request must be accompanied by a clear and concise explanation in your cover letter.
Please note that the editorial team is not bound by these suggestions or exclusions, but all requests will be carefully considered. We ask authors not to exclude an excessive number of individuals, as this may hinder the selection of qualified reviewers.
Reviewers are essential to our journal's success. All invitations, manuscript files, and report submissions are handled through Editorial Manager. We ask our reviewers to:
Provide an objective, constructive, and timely assessment of the manuscript.
Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review.
Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.