Peer Review Process

The Journal of Biopharmaceutics and Clinical Pharmacy (JBCP) follows a rigorous and transparent peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published manuscripts. Peer review plays a critical role in improving research quality by providing constructive feedback to authors while assisting editors in making informed publication decisions.

All submissions undergo a structured evaluation process consisting of two main stages: initial editorial screening and a double-blind peer review conducted by independent experts in the relevant field.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are first reviewed by the editorial team to assess their suitability for the journal. This preliminary evaluation includes:

  • Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting standards
  • Clarity, organization, and academic quality
  • Originality and plagiarism screening (similarity threshold: ≤ 19%)

Based on this assessment, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Reject
  • Resubmit after Major Revisions
  • Resubmit after Minor Revisions
  • Accept (in rare cases without external review)

Authors are notified through the OJS system and provided with relevant comments where applicable. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted for further evaluation.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers under a double-blind review model, ensuring that the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.

Reviewers evaluate submissions based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Scientific rigor and methodological soundness
  • Clarity, structure, and coherence of presentation
  • Ethical compliance and research integrity
  • Relevance and contribution to the field

Reviewers provide detailed reports and recommend one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Objectivity: Reviews must be unbiased and based solely on academic merit.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should decline assignments where conflicts exist.
  • Constructive Feedback: Comments should be professional and aimed at improving the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviews are typically expected within 2–3 weeks.

4. Revision and Decision Process

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments systematically and submit a detailed response to reviewers along with the revised manuscript. Depending on the extent of revisions:

  • Minor revisions are assessed by the editorial team.
  • Major revisions may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on reviewer recommendations and the quality of revisions.

5. Transparency and Communication

All correspondence, reviewer comments, and editorial decisions are managed through the OJS platform to ensure transparency, traceability, and efficient communication throughout the review process.

6. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to report any concerns related to plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct. Such matters are handled confidentially by the editorial office in accordance with publication ethics standards.

7. Special Cases

  • Second Round Review: Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review if required.
  • Editorial Review: In some cases, the editorial board may make a decision without external review for minor submissions.
  • Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing justified arguments to the editorial office.

JBCP is committed to maintaining a fair, unbiased, and high-quality peer review process. The collaborative efforts of authors, reviewers, and editors ensure the publication of impactful and reliable scientific research.