Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The TMP Universal Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences follows a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, reliable, and impactful research. Our peer review process is designed to evaluate the scientific validity, originality, and relevance of each manuscript, while providing constructive feedback to authors. This process helps maintain the journal’s standards of excellence and upholds the integrity of scientific publishing.

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

  • Authors submit their manuscripts via our online submission system, providing all necessary details such as author information, conflict of interest disclosures, and ethical approval statements (where applicable).
  • Each submission is initially assessed by the editorial team for scope alignment with the journal and for adherence to submission guidelines.

Step 2: Initial Editorial Evaluation

  • Once submitted, the editorial team performs a preliminary review of the manuscript. This evaluation checks for compliance with the journal's scope, scientific rigor, novelty, and clarity of presentation.
  • Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements, or that are outside the journal’s scope, may be rejected at this stage. Authors are informed promptly about the decision.

Step 3: Peer Review Assignment

  • For manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation, the editor assigns the manuscript to two or more expert reviewers from the relevant field of study. These reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, reputation, and impartiality.
  • The peer review is double-blind, meaning both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the process. This helps to eliminate bias and ensures an objective evaluation of the manuscript.

Step 4: Peer Review

  • Reviewers assess the manuscript on several key factors, including:
    • Originality: Does the manuscript provide new insights or significant advancements in the field?
    • Scientific Quality: Are the research methods, data analysis, and conclusions robust, valid, and reliable?
    • Relevance: Does the manuscript address important and timely issues in pharmaceutical sciences?
    • Clarity and Presentation: Is the manuscript well-written, clearly structured, and free of errors?
    • Ethical Considerations: Has the research adhered to ethical guidelines, including informed consent, patient confidentiality, and research integrity?
  • Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed feedback, suggesting improvements or revisions where necessary. They may also recommend the acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript based on their assessment.

Step 5: Editorial Decision

  • After receiving the reviews, the editor evaluates the feedback and makes the final decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions are:
    • Accept: If the manuscript meets all the journal’s criteria and the reviews are favorable, the article is accepted for publication.
    • Minor Revision: If the manuscript requires small changes or improvements, the authors are asked to address the reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version.
    • Major Revision: If the manuscript requires significant modifications or further clarification, authors are asked to revise the manuscript extensively, addressing all reviewer comments before resubmission.
    • Reject: If the manuscript does not meet the scientific or quality standards or does not align with the journal’s scope, it may be rejected.
  • Authors are informed of the decision and provided with the reviewers' feedback. If revisions are required, authors are given a reasonable period to make the necessary changes and resubmit the manuscript.

Step 6: Revision and Resubmission

  • Authors are encouraged to address the reviewers' comments comprehensively when revising the manuscript. If the revision is substantial, the editor may send the manuscript back to the original reviewers for a second round of evaluation.
  • The process may repeat until the manuscript meets the journal’s standards, at which point it is accepted for publication.

Step 7: Final Acceptance and Publication

  • Upon acceptance, the manuscript undergoes a final round of editing, including language editing, formatting, and checking for plagiarism.
  • Once finalized, the article is published in an online-first format, immediately available to the global research community, before being included in a formal issue of the journal.

Step 8: Post-Publication

  • After publication, the journal encourages authors to engage with the community by promoting their work through academic platforms and social media. Readers are invited to cite the article, and authors can respond to any post-publication comments or inquiries.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the scientific record. Their main responsibilities include:

  • Providing a fair, objective, and thorough evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Ensuring the manuscript adheres to ethical guidelines, such as avoiding plagiarism and ensuring that all necessary permissions have been obtained.
  • Offering constructive and detailed feedback to authors, suggesting improvements to the manuscript.
  • Maintaining confidentiality and not using any information from the manuscript for personal or professional gain.

Ethical Considerations

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they evaluate. Manuscripts should not be shared or discussed with others unless explicitly authorized by the journal.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the manuscript under review. If a conflict of interest exists, the reviewer must decline to evaluate the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to provide timely feedback to ensure the peer review process progresses efficiently.

Why Double-Blind Peer Review?

The double-blind peer review process ensures that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identity. This promotes objectivity and prevents potential biases from influencing the evaluation of the manuscript. It helps maintain the focus on the scientific content and quality of the research rather than the reputation or affiliations of the authors.