Peer Review Process

The American Journal of Medical Sciences and Pharmaceutical Research
ISSN: 2689-1026

The American Journal of Medical Sciences and Pharmaceutical Research uses peer review to assess the scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts. Editorial decisions are based on the merits of the research and the recommendations of qualified reviewers.

1. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

After submission, the editorial office checks the manuscript for completeness, compliance with author guidelines, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The initial assessment considers:

• Originality and contribution to medical sciences or pharmaceutical research.

• Clarity of presentation and completeness of the manuscript.

• Suitability of the research methods and reporting.

• Ethics approval, informed consent, and clinical trial registration, where applicable.

• Authorship, funding, and conflict-of-interest declarations.

• Potential plagiarism, substantial overlap, or other integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope or do not meet its basic standards may be returned for clarification or rejected before external review. Passing this assessment does not guarantee acceptance.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Research manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process, in which author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Authors should submit an anonymized manuscript and provide identifying information separately, as directed in the author guidelines.

Although the journal takes steps to protect anonymity, an author’s identity may sometimes be inferred from preprints, references, or the nature of the research.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise, experience, availability, and ability to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and decline assignments where these could compromise their judgment. Author-suggested reviewers, if provided, are assessed independently; the editor retains responsibility for reviewer selection.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s:

• Scientific significance, originality, and relevance.

• Research design and methodological rigor.

• Appropriateness of statistical analysis, where applicable.

• Accuracy and clarity of results.

• Support for the conclusions and acknowledgement of limitations.

• Compliance with research ethics and appropriate reporting standards.

• Quality of references, tables, figures, and presentation.

Reviewers provide constructive comments and a recommendation to the editor. They may request clarification, additional analysis, or revisions where necessary.

5. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers’ reports alongside the manuscript’s scientific and ethical merits. Possible decisions include:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication.

• Minor revision: Limited changes or clarifications are required.

• Major revision: Substantial changes are required before further consideration.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or has significant concerns that cannot be adequately resolved.

Reviewer recommendations inform the decision; the final decision rests with the editor. When reports differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review.

6. Revision and Reassessment

Authors invited to revise must submit an updated manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Any disagreement should be supported by a clear scientific explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers, depending on the extent of the changes. Additional revision rounds may be necessary. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

7. Acceptance and Publication

A manuscript is accepted only after the editor is satisfied that the scientific, reporting, and ethical requirements have been met.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and proof preparation. Authors are responsible for checking proofs carefully and responding to editorial queries. Substantial changes to findings, authorship, or conclusions after acceptance require editorial approval and may require further assessment.

8. Review Timelines

Review duration varies according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the timeliness of author responses.

The editorial office communicates decisions and revision deadlines to the corresponding author. Authors may contact the journal for an update on their submission. Publication by a particular date cannot be guaranteed before the review and editorial process is complete.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Submitted manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential. Editors and reviewers must not disclose unpublished content or use it for personal advantage.

Reviewers must report suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, ethical concerns, or peer-review manipulation to the editor. Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

10. Editorial Independence and Publication Charges

Editorial decisions are independent of payments and commercial interests. Any applicable Article Processing Charge is communicated separately and becomes payable only after formal acceptance.

Payment does not guarantee acceptance, favorable reviews, or preferential treatment.

Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members undergo independent assessment. The submitting editor or board member takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision on their own manuscript.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence to the editorial office. Appeals should identify specific concerns about the assessment or decision.

The journal will review appeals fairly and may seek independent editorial advice. An appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Questions about the review process, submission status, or reviewer conduct should be directed to the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.