Guidelines for Reviewers

IASR Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Science (IJMPS)

IASR Journal of Medical and Pharmaceutical Science (IJMPS) values 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 documents. 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 their evaluations within the stipulated time frame. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they 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 language quality

6. Ethical Considerations

If reviewers identify potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, data falsification, duplicate publication, or 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 by detailed comments to assist both the editor and the authors.

8. Constructive Feedback

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