IASR Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Science (IJMPS) recognizes the critical role of peer reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers are requested to adhere to the following guidelines while evaluating submitted manuscripts:

1. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editorial office.

2. Objectivity and Fairness
Reviews should be conducted objectively, professionally, and without personal bias. Comments should be constructive, evidence-based, and aimed at improving the scientific quality of the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

3. Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal) that could influence their evaluation. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review assignment.

4. Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the stipulated timeframe. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should promptly inform the editorial office so that alternative arrangements can be made.

5. Scientific Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following aspects:

• Originality and novelty of the study
• Scientific relevance to medical and pharmaceutical sciences
• Clarity of research objectives
• Appropriateness of methodology and study design
• Accuracy and adequacy of statistical analysis
• Validity of results and strength of conclusions
• Relevance and adequacy of references
• Ethical considerations and compliance (where applicable)
• Overall clarity, structure, and quality of language

6. Ethical Considerations
If reviewers identify potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or other unethical research practices, they must promptly notify the editorial office with appropriate justification.

7. Recommendations
Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation to the editor, typically categorized as:

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

All recommendations should be supported with detailed comments to assist both the editor and the authors.

8. Constructive Feedback
Reviewers are encouraged to provide specific suggestions for improvement, including methodological clarifications, additional references, language corrections, or structural refinement where necessary.