The Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences (AJPSci) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and ethically valued research, and therefore follows a Double-Blind Peer Review system in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. This approach is designed to make the review process fair, objective, and free from personal or institutional bias. Peer review serves as a rigorous quality control mechanism, ensuring that every manuscript we publish meets the highest standards of scientific validity, clarity, and originality. All research papers must undergo and pass peer review before publication in AJPSci.
The review process begins with an initial editorial screening to confirm that the manuscript falls within the journal’s Aim and Scope, meets submission and formatting requirements, and contains all necessary sections and references. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria are returned to the authors for correction before further processing. The next step is a plagiarism check using reliable detection software, with an acceptable similarity threshold of 10% (excluding references). Any paper exceeding this limit, or showing evidence of unethical copying, will be rejected outright or sent back for revision with a clear explanation to the authors.
Once these checks are complete, the manuscript is assigned to an associate editor who is responsible for managing the review process. The associate editor selects at least two independent reviewers who have subject expertise in the manuscript’s research area, possess a strong track record of quality reviewing, and have no conflicts of interest with the authors or their institutions. Potential conflicts include personal relationships, shared affiliations, current or recent collaborations, and competition in the same research field. The reviewers are given 2–4 weeks to thoroughly evaluate the paper. Authors are updated regularly about the progress of the review process during this time.
Reviewers assess the manuscript for several key factors: originality of the research, scientific accuracy of methods and data, clarity and coherence of writing, sufficiency and quality of data to support conclusions, and adherence to established ethical standards, including compliance with relevant guidelines such as ICH, WHO, USP, BP, IP, and EP. They also check whether the work advances the field, aligns with the journal’s scope, and presents findings in a manner that would be valuable to the wider scientific community.
Following their assessment, reviewers submit detailed written reports with constructive comments for the authors and a recommendation to the editor:
- Accept without changes - The paper meets all criteria and is ready for publication.
- Minor revision - Only small changes are needed for clarity or presentation.
- Major revision - Substantial improvements are required, such as additional data, deeper analysis, or clearer interpretation.
- Reject - The paper does not meet scientific or ethical standards, or falls outside the scope of the journal.
The associate editor then carefully considers these reports and seeks additional input (if required) before making a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection. If revisions are requested, the paper is returned to the authors along with all reviewer comments. Authors are expected to respond to each comment politely, provide a clear point-by-point reply, make all necessary changes in the manuscript, and resubmit within the specified deadline. If authors disagree with a comment, they must provide a valid and well-explained justification. Depending on the extent of revisions, the revised paper may be sent back to the same reviewers for confirmation.
Throughout the process, confidentiality is strictly maintained. All manuscripts under review are considered privileged information, and neither editors nor reviewers are allowed to share, discuss, or use the unpublished material for personal benefit. Reviewers are expected to decline any review assignment where a conflict of interest exists, and the editor will assign another qualified reviewer in such cases.
If authors disagree with an editorial decision, they have the right to appeal by submitting a formal letter to the Editor-in-Chief explaining their concerns and reasons. Appeals are reviewed independently by another editor or reviewer who was not involved in the original decision, ensuring fairness and transparency.
AJPSci strictly follows ethical principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The journal does not tolerate unethical practices such as fake peer reviews, misuse of reviewer identities, biased treatment of authors, or deliberate delays in the review process.