Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Indian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Research (INDJCPR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, research quality, and ethical publishing. To ensure this, all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process involving independent expert reviewers. This policy outlines each stage of the review process in detail.

• Overview of the Peer Review Process

INDJCPR follows a peer-review system, meaning:

• Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities
• Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities

This ensures fairness, objectivity, and impartial evaluation of all manuscripts.

The peer review process consists of the following steps:

1. Initial Submission Check
2. Plagiarism Screening
3. Assignment to Handling Editor
4. Reviewer Selection & Invitation
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
6. Editorial Decision
7. Revision Process (if applicable)
8. Final Decision & Acceptance
• Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor to ensure:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Compliance with author guidelines
• Basic scientific soundness
• Ethical and reporting standards

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external peer review.

• Plagiarism Check

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software.

Manuscripts with:

• Similarity above acceptable limits
• Copied figures/tables
• Unattributed content

may be rejected or returned for correction.

• Reviewer Selection

INDJCPR selects qualified reviewers based on:

• Subject expertise
• Research experience
• Previous review quality
• Absence of conflicts of interest

A minimum of two independent reviewers evaluate each manuscript. In special cases, a third reviewer or statistical reviewer may be invited.

• Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

• Originality and novelty
• Validity of research questions
• Soundness of methodology
• Quality of data and statistical analysis

Clarity & Presentation

• Logical structure of the article
• Clear interpretation of results
• Adequate references and literature support
• Language quality

Ethical Considerations

• Ethical approvals for human/animal studies
• Informed consent (where applicable)
• Transparency and research integrity

Contribution to the Field

• Relevance to clinical or medical practice
• Importance to the scientific community
• Potential impact on healthcare or research

Reviewers provide:

• Detailed comments
• Constructive feedback
• Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject
• Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, unbiased evaluations
• Complete reviews within the stipulated timeline (usually 2–4 weeks)
• Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content
• Declare any conflicts of interest
• Avoid using manuscript information for personal gain
• Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer comments, the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept without revisions
• Minor revision required
• Major revision required
• Reject

The decision is communicated to the authors along with reviewer comments.

• Revision Process

If revisions are requested:

• Authors must submit a revised manuscript
• Provide a point-by-point response to reviewer comments
• Highlight or track all changes

Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers, depending on the extent of revision.

• Final Acceptance

The final decision is made only after:

• All reviewer concerns are addressed
• Manuscript meets publication standards
• Similarity check is cleared
• Ethical standards are verified

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, and publication.

• Confidentiality & Ethics
• Reviewers and editors must not disclose manuscript content
• Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents
• Peer review comments are not published or shared publicly
• Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose:

• Financial interests
• Personal relationships
• Academic competition
• Any competing interest that may influence judgment

Manuscripts with conflicts of interest may be reassigned to independent editors or reviewers.

• Appeals & Complaints

Authors may appeal decisions if they believe:

• A factual error occurred
• A reviewer made incorrect assumptions
• There was bias or misunderstanding

The editorial office will conduct a fair re-evaluation with new reviewers if necessary.

• Reviewer Recognition

INDJCPR acknowledges the contribution of reviewers by issuing:

• Reviewer Certificates
• Annual Recognition Awards (if applicable)
• Editorial Board Invitations for consistent high-quality reviewers