Publication Ethics & Malpractices Statement

The mission of International Journal of Pharmacy (An international peer-reviewed quarterly journal) is to provide its readers with up-to-date information relevant to pharmaceutical sciences and other allied sciences. The journal policy is to publish work deemed by peer reviewers to be a coherent and sound addition to scientific knowledge and to put less emphasis on interest levels, provided that the research constitutes a useful contribution to the field. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, case studies, reports and technical notes.

International Journal of Pharmacy follows the highest standards of publication ethics and it takes all measures necessary to prevent publication misconduct. Our editorial board does not accept any type of plagiarism. This means that works replicating another author's work without acknowledging him/her shall be automatically disqualified. All authors submitting their papers to International Journal of Pharmacy affirm that their papers are their own creations and have not been copied in whole or in part from other works. Each paper is reviewed anonymously by an independent reviewer to ensure the final high standard and quality of the journal. If a paper is found to be deficient in any respect, it is returned to the author for rework, or it is refused. The communication between the reviewers and authors is managed by and conducted through the editors. The volume editors and reviewers are the body to ultimately decide which papers are publishable in International Journal of Pharmacy. Their decision is based on a number of factors: compliance with formal requirements, topical orientation of the issue and its harmony with the topic of the paper, possession of permits to reprint/republish excerpts in the papers, relevance of the paper in terms of scientific research in the respective field, use of scientific procedures and methods, language quality etc. Unpublished papers shall be returned to the author with a formal statement justifying the refusal. In the reviewing process, the reviewers help the author improve the paper to match the respective requirements, objectify the research findings etc. The papers received/reviewed by the reviewers are treated with confidentiality.


Peer review is intended to improve the accuracy, clarity, and completeness of published manuscripts and to help editors decide which manuscripts to publish. Peer review does not guarantee manuscript quality and does not reliably detect scientific misconduct.

Peer reviewers should be experts in the manuscript’s content area, research methods, or both; a critique of writing style alone is not sufficient. Peer reviewers should be selected based on their expertise and ability to provide high quality, constructive, and fair reviews. For research manuscripts, editors may, in addition, seek the opinion of a statistical reviewer.

Peer reviewers advise editors on how a manuscript might be improved and on its priority for publication in that journal. Editors decide whether and under which conditions manuscripts are accepted for publication, assisted by reviewers’ advice.

Peer reviewers are sometimes paid for their efforts but usually provide their opinions free of charge, as a service to their profession. Editors should require all peer reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, related to a particular manuscript and should take this information into account when deciding how to use their review. Generally speaking, people with a direct financial interest in the results of the manuscripts should not be reviewers.

To be considered peer reviewed, a journal should have obtained external reviews for the majority of manuscripts it publishes, including all original research and review articles. Some editors request peer review for other kinds of articles, such as opinion pieces (commentaries/editorials) and correspondence. To have been peer reviewed, a manuscript should have been reviewed by at least one external reviewer; it is typical to have two reviewers and sometimes more opinions are sought.

Editors of peer-reviewed journals need not send all submitted manuscripts out for review. Manuscripts that seem unlikely to be published in that journal may be returned to authors without external review, to allow authors to submit the manuscript to another journal without delay and to make efficient use of reviewers’ and editors’ time.

Editors should state their journal’s peer review policies, including which kinds of article are peer reviewed and by how many reviewers, in the instructions for authors. Editors should also periodically publish statistics describing their journal’s review process, such as number of manuscripts submitted, acceptance rate, and average times from manuscript submission to rejection letter to authors and, for accepted manuscripts, time to publication.

All published articles in international journal of pharmacy are peer reviewed and all manuscripts submitted follows the procedure outlined below.

Initial Manuscript Evaluation: All manuscripts submitted for publication in Journal are firstly evaluated by the Editorial Board Members. The editors employ double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

Referee Evaluation: After initial evaluation, the manuscripts are sent to a minimum of two external referees for peer-review. If necessary, the number of referees can be increased by editors. The referees are chosen from referee board according to their expertise. Referees are asked to evaluate the manuscript’s originality, methodology, contribution to the literature, presentation of results and support for the conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant studies. Referees might accept the manuscript, reject the manuscript or might require a revision for style and/or content.

When a revision is required by the referee or referees, the author(s) are to consider the suggestions offered by the referees, and they should be sent back the revised version of manuscript in one month. Revised manuscripts returned after one month will be considered as a new submissions and peer review process is started from the beginning. Referees may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Possible decisions on a manuscript are:

  • Accepted as it is
  • Accepted after minor revision
  • Accepted after major revision
  • Rejected

If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible within one week. If major revision is required, authors should return a revised version within two to three weeks.
Final Evaluation:After favorable opinions of referees, editorial board is made the final evaluation. The articles accepted for publication by editorial board are placed in an issue sequence.

Time of Peer Review Process: The peer review process that has long time is an important problem. Naturally, the author(s) wish to take an answer about their submissions. The journal aims to complete the all peer review process within 2-3 weeks after submission. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.


Guidelines to Reviewers

  • The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research.
  • A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate scientific communication.
  • If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor with that explanation.
  • Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within two weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within the time specified, please inform the editor.
  • A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us first.
  • Please do not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in your comments for transmission to the author, but advise the editor on sheet provided.
  • In your review, please consider the following aspects on the manuscript as far as they are applicable:

    1.Scientific reliability
    2.Importance (clinical or otherwise) of the question or subject studied
    3.Originality (truly original or known to you through foreign or specialist publications or through the grapevine)
    4.Adequacy of abstract, key words.
    5.Appropriateness of approach or experimental design, adequacy of experimental techniques (including statistics where appropriate, need for statistical assessment). Methods adequately described? Appropriate? Patients studied adequately described and their condition defined?
    6.Results relevant to problem posed? Credible? Well presented?
    7.Soundness of conclusions and interpretation. Interpretation and conclusions warranted by the data? Reasonable speculation? Is the message clear?
    8.Relevance of discussion
    9.References up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
    10.Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.
    11.Suitability for the TP and overall recommendations. Appropriate for general readership or more appropriate for specialist journal?
    12.If not acceptable can the paper be made so?
    13.Ethical aspects
    14.Overall presentation (including writing style, clarity of writing)

  • In comments intended for the author's, criticism should be presented dispassionately, and abrasive remarks avoided.