The review policy of RJPPD can be stated as “the absolute assessment of manuscripts submitted by authors by determining and fixing the flaws and ensuring all the manuscripts are compatible with ‘transparency’ and ‘ethical values’ before publishing”.
The reviewing of the manuscripts in RJPPD is treated as the crucial stage in the entire publishing process, as it plays a primary role in outlining the defects and also it adds value in the field of pharmacology and pharmacodynamics. It has a fundamental role in maintaining and uplifting the integrity, honesty and moral aspect of the published literature. Review process is a very careful and detail-oriented process which demands trust and sincerity from the people involved in the peer review board. Therefore, we in RJPPD are committed to take only those articles and manuscripts which are appropriate and can pass through the rigorous review process irrespective of the institute’s financial gain. We promise to our users, immediate publication of the manuscript just after receiving the chief editor’s approval.
Members of review board of RJPPD are required to strictly follow below stated guidelines:
- Reject manuscripts with personal, financial, or other conflicts of interest.
- Impose restrictions on authors with repeated cases of malpractice, conflicts of interest, or plagiarism.
- Do not accept the manuscript which has been already submitted to different journals simultaneously.
- Do not reveal the identity of the peer review members and the person involved in the review process.
- The secrecy and confidentiality of the manuscript should be maintained properly.
- Immediately refer the manuscripts to experts when asked by the Editor’s in chief.
- Editor’s in chief must consider the reports of the expert and reviewer board before making a publication decision.
Publication Procedure
Preliminary Screening
Every fresh manuscript will be subjected to an initial screening which is headed by the Editor in chief to determine if they contain any errors or data manipulation. The manuscript will also be checked for any breaching of the ethical values and transparency including the rights for human and animal experimentation given in Declaration of Helsinki and guidelines of COPE 2011 and the manuscripts which is not in compliance with the RJPPD ethics policy and are not in according with the standards of RJPPD will be rejected before the peer review itself. Manuscript with minor correction and unstructured flow of words will be returned to the author for revision and resubmission. After these initial checks the Editor in chief will discuss with the journal’s Editor, Associate Editor or Advisory Board Member or (with the Editorial Board Member in the case of conflict of interests) to determine if the manuscript is in accordance with the scope of the journal or not. RJPPD will not give a conclusion about the manuscript at this stage.
Peer Review
After the successful completion of preliminary screening the manuscript will be sent to at least two independent subject experts for overall review of the manuscript for further scrutiny. RJPPD uses a Double blind system without revealing the identity of Reviewers and Authors but the Editor in chief is aware of their identities. RJPPD can also reach out to the reviewers for scrutiny, suggested by the authors during the time of manuscript submission. However, reviewers who have worked with the author in last five years or they are in collaboration with any of the institution of the author will not be permitted to review the manuscript.
Editorial Decision and Revision
RJPPD makes sure every article and manuscript is passed through a rigorous peer review process and it should receive at least two reviews. After the process of peer review the reviewer then consult with the Editor in chief regarding the decision for the publication of the manuscript with following points:
- If the manuscript contains any minor errors, then the author will be provided five days for revision of errors and resubmission.
- In case of major errors and flaws the manuscript shall only be accepted if the author submits the revised version of his manuscript in the given time limit. It should be noted that only one major revision is permitted and also in major errors the manuscript will be again subjected to the peer review process.
- If the manuscript is overall perfect but lacking some additional experiments then in such cases the authors will be encouraged to resubmit the same with added experiments.
- If the manuscript is found with serious issues and if it is not making any prominent contribution then the manuscript will be immediately rejected without giving author a chance of resubmission.
All the conclusions made by the reviewers during the review process should be made available to the author and they must provide a clear statement wherever it is required.
Author Appeals
If your manuscript is rejected, you can appeal by emailing the editorial office. Your email should explain why you disagree with the rejection by providing the detailed explanation. The editor in chief will review your appeal with the editorial board. The editorial board will then provide a statement whether to accept the manuscript, re-conduct the peer review process, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision made by the Editor in chief will be final and will not be changed.
In special cases, the journal’s managing director can forward the manuscript and related information to the Editor in chief who will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, or uphold the original rejection decision.