Peer Review Policy
The Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research (JAPER) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other. This process ensures objectivity, scientific integrity, and the overall quality of published research.
All submitted manuscripts must be original, must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal, and must not have been previously published. The journal uses a secure electronic manuscript submission, review, and production system.
Peer Review Process
|
Stage |
Description |
Key Focus and Responsibility |
|
1. Initial Editorial Screening |
Immediately upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a designated Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment. |
Focus is on alignment with the journal’s scope, adherence to ethical research standards (e.g., ethical approvals, informed consent), and initial screening for plagiarism. Noncompliant submissions are subject to immediate Desk Rejection. |
|
2. Subject Expert Assignment & Reviewer Selection |
Manuscripts that pass the screening are assigned to a qualified Associate Editor (or International Editor) who acts as the handling editor responsible for managing the peer review process. This editor conducts a detailed internal quality check on the methodology and scientific validity. |
The Associate Editor verifies the manuscript's suitability and is responsible for selecting and inviting at least two independent external expert reviewers whose expertise closely matches the manuscript’s topic. |
|
3. External Peer Review |
At least two qualified external reviewers independently assess the manuscript based on scientific quality, methodological rigor, novelty of findings, and clarity of presentation. |
Reviewer reports and recommendations are submitted to both the Associate Editor and the EIC. |
|
4. Final Decision-Making |
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, considering the recommendation of the assigned Associate Editor and the comprehensive reports received from the external reviewers. |
The decision to accept a manuscript is generally based on the assessment of at least two independent peer reviews. If reviewer recommendations conflict (e.g., one recommends acceptance, while the other recommends rejection), a third qualified expert reviewer is consulted to resolve the conflict. In rare circumstances where obtaining additional peer review is not feasible despite reasonable efforts, the Editor-in-Chief may proceed with a decision based on a single expert review, with full documentation and justification. |
Editorial Decisions and Revision
- Accept after Minor Revisions: Manuscripts are accepted subject to minor revisions. Authors must address all reviewer comments within the specified timeframe.
- Reconsider after Major Revisions: Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions are reconsidered after authors provide a detailed, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments, supported by evidence where appropriate. Generally, up to two rounds of major revision may be permitted.
- Reject and Encourage Resubmission: Manuscripts requiring extensive additional experiments or major data collection may be rejected, with the option to resubmit as a new manuscript after substantial improvement.
- Reject: Manuscripts with serious methodological flaws, ethical concerns, or insufficient originality are rejected without the option for resubmission.
Authors are required to provide a structured, point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Any disagreement with reviewer suggestions must be clearly justified with scientific reasoning and supporting evidence.
Review Duration and Complaints Policy
- Review Duration: The peer review process typically takes 2–3 months, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
- Complaints and Appeals: The journal is committed to handling complaints fairly and transparently. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. All complaints regarding editorial decisions, procedures, or conduct are acknowledged within six working days. Updates are provided biweekly until a final resolution is reached. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final.
Becoming a Reviewer: Qualified researchers interested in serving as peer reviewers are invited to contact the editorial office at [email protected].
Contact Meral
Meral Publications
www.meralpublisher.com
Davutpasa / Zeytinburnu 34087
Istanbul
Turkey
Email: [email protected]