Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy
To maintain academic rigor, research integrity, and scholarly quality, all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Public Health and Pharmacy (JPHP) undergo administrative and initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that pass these stages are evaluated through a double-blind external peer review process. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, originality, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
Double-Blind Review
Author and reviewer identities remain confidential
Minimum Two Reviewers
Independent subject-matter assessment
Editorial Independence
Merit-based decision-making
Confidential Process
Protected manuscript information
Editorial and Peer Review Workflow
1
Submission and Administrative Check
The Editorial Team verifies submission completeness, required documents, manuscript anonymization, metadata, file structure, formatting, declarations, and compliance with the Author Guidelines. Administratively incomplete submissions may receive a Return for Technical Correction decision.
2
Initial Editorial Screening
Editors assess alignment with the journal’s focus and scope, originality, minimum scholarly quality, methodological plausibility, ethical requirements, transparency statements, reporting quality, and suitability for external review. The possible decisions at this stage are Desk Reject, Revise Before Review, or Send for Review.
3
Reviewer Selection
Following a Send for Review decision, the manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. A third reviewer may be invited when additional expertise is required or reviewer recommendations materially diverge.
4
Double-Blind External Review
The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another. Reviewers assess the manuscript independently and submit objective, constructive, and sufficiently detailed reports and recommendations. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and inform, but do not determine, the editorial decision.
5
Revision and Author Response
When Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Resubmit for Review is requested, authors must address editor and reviewer comments carefully, submit a revised manuscript, and provide a clear point-by-point response. Depending on the decision and the extent of the changes, the revision may be assessed editorially or sent for another review round.
6
Editorial Decision
The assigned editor evaluates the review reports, author responses, revised manuscript, and complete editorial record. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor makes the decision based on scientific merit, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance. More than one revision or review round may be required before a final decision is reached.
7
Post-Acceptance Production
Only manuscripts receiving an Accept decision proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, and final proofreading. Authors review the proof and approve necessary corrections before publication. Acceptance remains subject to completion of required publication ethics and production checks.
Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using criteria relevant to the article type and research design, including the following elements.
Title and Abstract
Relevance, clarity, accuracy, and consistency with the manuscript.
Relevance, clarity, accuracy, and consistency with the manuscript.
Background
Scientific context, literature foundation, research gap, and objectives.
Scientific context, literature foundation, research gap, and objectives.
Methods and Ethics
Appropriateness, transparency, reproducibility, and ethical compliance.
Appropriateness, transparency, reproducibility, and ethical compliance.
Results
Validity, accuracy, completeness, presentation, and analytical integrity.
Validity, accuracy, completeness, presentation, and analytical integrity.
Discussion and Conclusion
Interpretation, comparison with evidence, limitations, implications, and consistency.
Interpretation, comparison with evidence, limitations, implications, and consistency.
Contribution and Presentation
Originality, scholarly relevance, structure, writing clarity, and references.
Originality, scholarly relevance, structure, writing clarity, and references.
Reviewer Responsibilities
Confidentiality
Objectivity
Constructive Feedback
Conflict Disclosure
Ethical Conduct
Editorial Decisions and Definitions
Editorial decisions are defined according to the stage at which they are issued. Except for Accept, no decision constitutes a commitment to publish the manuscript.
Before External Peer Review
Return for Technical Correction
The submission is administratively incomplete or does not comply with technical requirements, such as metadata, anonymization, required files, declarations, template, formatting, references, or language presentation. It is returned for correction before scientific screening. This decision is not a rejection and does not indicate that the manuscript is scientifically suitable.
The submission is administratively incomplete or does not comply with technical requirements, such as metadata, anonymization, required files, declarations, template, formatting, references, or language presentation. It is returned for correction before scientific screening. This decision is not a rejection and does not indicate that the manuscript is scientifically suitable.
Desk Reject
The submission is declined without external review because it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality or contribution to public health or pharmacy, has fundamental methodological or reporting weaknesses, presents serious ethical or integrity concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for the journal. This decision closes the current submission.
The submission is declined without external review because it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality or contribution to public health or pharmacy, has fundamental methodological or reporting weaknesses, presents serious ethical or integrity concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for the journal. This decision closes the current submission.
Revise Before Review
The submission is potentially relevant and may become suitable for external review, but substantive improvement is required in its scientific framing, methods or reporting, analysis presentation, structure, language, or compliance with applicable reporting guidelines. The revised manuscript will undergo renewed editorial screening, and external review is not guaranteed.
The submission is potentially relevant and may become suitable for external review, but substantive improvement is required in its scientific framing, methods or reporting, analysis presentation, structure, language, or compliance with applicable reporting guidelines. The revised manuscript will undergo renewed editorial screening, and external review is not guaranteed.
Send for Review
The submission has passed the administrative and initial editorial screening stages and is considered eligible for external peer review. It will be assigned to qualified independent reviewers. This decision confirms progression to review only and does not imply acceptance or a favorable final outcome.
The submission has passed the administrative and initial editorial screening stages and is considered eligible for external peer review. It will be assigned to qualified independent reviewers. This decision confirms progression to review only and does not imply acceptance or a favorable final outcome.
After External Peer Review
Accept
The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards and requires no further substantive revision. Copyediting, formatting, reference verification, proofreading, or other production corrections may still be required before publication.
The manuscript meets the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards and requires no further substantive revision. Copyediting, formatting, reference verification, proofreading, or other production corrections may still be required before publication.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not alter its core study design, principal analysis, or main conclusions. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor without another external review, although re-review may be requested when necessary.
The manuscript requires limited corrections or clarifications that do not alter its core study design, principal analysis, or main conclusions. The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor without another external review, although re-review may be requested when necessary.
Major Revision
The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial changes to its methods, analysis, results, interpretation, reporting, or presentation. The revised manuscript will normally undergo further editorial assessment and may be returned to the original or additional reviewers. This decision does not guarantee acceptance.
The manuscript has publication potential but requires substantial changes to its methods, analysis, results, interpretation, reporting, or presentation. The revised manuscript will normally undergo further editorial assessment and may be returned to the original or additional reviewers. This decision does not guarantee acceptance.
Resubmit for Review
Fundamental reworking, reanalysis, or restructuring is required beyond the scope of a major revision, but the editor considers that a substantially revised manuscript may warrant renewed evaluation. A resubmitted version will enter a new external review round and will be assessed without any presumption of acceptance.
Fundamental reworking, reanalysis, or restructuring is required beyond the scope of a major revision, but the editor considers that a substantially revised manuscript may warrant renewed evaluation. A resubmitted version will enter a new external review round and will be assessed without any presumption of acceptance.
Reject
Following external review, the manuscript is declined because concerns regarding validity, originality, ethical compliance, scope, contribution, reporting, or interpretation are sufficiently serious or cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. This decision closes the current submission.
Following external review, the manuscript is declined because concerns regarding validity, originality, ethical compliance, scope, contribution, reporting, or interpretation are sufficiently serious or cannot reasonably be resolved through revision. This decision closes the current submission.
Decision authority: Reviewer reports and recommendations support editorial judgment but do not constitute editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor is responsible for the decision and may seek additional review when the available evidence is insufficient or materially conflicting.
Similarity screening: Manuscripts are screened using Turnitin or an equivalent system. The maximum permitted similarity index is 20%. Editors assess the report contextually, and a numerical score alone does not establish plagiarism.
JPHP applies independent peer review to support the publication of rigorous, ethical, and relevant public-health and pharmacy research.
