The peer review process is essential to maintaining high standards of academic rigour and ensuring the quality of content published in Pharma Research Library (PRL). This policy outlines the procedures and principles guiding the peer review process, ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and objectively. Pharma Research Library(PRL) employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure anonymity and impartiality. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review cycle. Each manuscript is evaluated by independent experts who assess the quality, originality, and significance of the research.

Once a manuscript is submitted:

• The editorial team conducts an initial screening to ensure the submission meets the journal’s focus, scope, and formatting guidelines.
• The manuscript is checked for plagiarism, ethical concerns, and compliance with journal policies.
• Manuscripts that pass this screening are assigned to the editor-in-chief or associate editors for further review.

The editor-in-chief or associate editors select qualified peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter. Reviewers are selected based on the following criteria:

• Expertise in the manuscript’s research area.
• Prior experience in reviewing scholarly work.
• Availability and willingness to complete the review within the stipulated timeline.
• No conflicts of interest with the authors or their affiliations.

Once reviewers are assigned, they evaluate the manuscript based on the following key criteria:

• Originality: Does the manuscript provide novel insights or contributions to the field?
• Significance: Is the research important and relevant to the journal’s audience?
• Methodology: Are the research methods sound, robust, and appropriate?
• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-organized, clear, and coherent?
• Ethics: Are ethical guidelines followed, including consent and research approvals (where applicable)?
• Audience: Address international audience
• Contribution to the Knowledge: Whether the article contributes to the body of knowledge according to the needs of the time
• Relevance: Whether the article discussed is relevant to the time

Reviewers provide detailed comments, suggestions for improvement, and a recommendation to the editor. The possible outcomes of peer review include:

• Accept as it is: The manuscript is ready for publication with minimal or no changes.
• Minor revisions: The manuscript requires minor corrections or clarifications before it can be accepted.
• Major revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes before it can be reconsidered for publication.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication.

If a manuscript requires revisions:

• The editorial office will forward reviewer comments to the authors, who will be given a specified period to make necessary changes with track changes.
• Authors should address each reviewer’s comment in a point-by-point response document with track changes, explaining how the revisions were made or providing a rationale for not making suggested changes.
• The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers by the editor for further evaluation, particularly if major changes are requested.

The final decision to accept, reject, or request further revisions is made by the editor-in-chief or associate editors, taking into account the reviewers’ recommendations and the quality of the revisions. Authors will be notified of the decision, along with any additional editorial comments, if applicable. Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the integrity of the academic record.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide an objective, unbiased, and constructive review based on their expertise.
• Submit their review within the agreed-upon timeframe.
• Treat the manuscript and associated materials confidentially, refraining from sharing or discussing the work with others.
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor before accepting a review assignment.
• Provide clear, specific, and actionable feedback to help authors improve their work.

Editors oversee the entire peer review process to ensure fairness and transparency. The editorial team is responsible for:

• Ensuring the journal’s peer review process is conducted ethically and efficiently.
• Selecting reviewers who are experts in the relevant field and free from conflicts of interest.
• Ensuring that reviewer feedback is communicated clearly to the authors.
• Making the final decision on the manuscript based on peer review reports, author responses, and editorial judgment.

All parties involved in the peer review process must disclose any conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of their work. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Financial relationships with organizations or individuals related to the manuscript.
• Personal or professional relationships with the authors.
• Competing research interests.

Reviewers with a potential conflict of interest must inform the editorial team and may be excused from reviewing the manuscript. Similarly, authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers who do not have conflicts of interest.

The peer review process at Pharma Research Library(PRL) is strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or its contents with others without the permission of the editor.
• Use information obtained during the review process for personal or professional advantage.

The identity of reviewers is also confidential and will not be revealed to the authors or other reviewers unless both parties agree to an open review process.

Authors who disagree with the editorial decision may appeal by submitting a detailed explanation of their concerns. The editorial board will review the appeal, potentially consulting the original reviewers or additional reviewers, before making a final decision. Appeals must be based on the content of the review and should provide evidence to support the authors’ arguments. Complaints about the peer review process can be addressed to the editor-in-chief, who will investigate the matter and respond accordingly.

Timeliness of the Peer Review Process

Pharma Research Library(PRL) strives to provide authors with a prompt and efficient peer review process. Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within 30 days. Editors will communicate any delays to authors if the review process exceeds the expected timeline. The journal adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows best practices in peer review to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing. Any concerns about ethical misconduct in the peer review process will be thoroughly investigated by the editorial board.