1. Double-Blind Peer Review Model

The International Journal of Pharmacology, Pharmacotherapeutics and Therapy (IJPCTT) utilizes a double-blind peer review procedure for all submitted research articles. Under this model:

• The identities and affiliations of authors are concealed from reviewers.
• The identities of assigned peer reviewers are concealed from authors throughout and following the evaluation process.
• All manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit, methodological validity, clinical relevance, and adherence to ethical research standards, free from bias regarding institutional prominence, author seniority, or geographical origin.

2. Review Workflow Stages

1. Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors assess scope alignment, manuscript formatting, ethics documentation, and run similarity checks. Manuscripts with critical flaws or out-of-scope aims may be rejected prior to external review (desk reject).
2. Reviewer Selection: A minimum of two independent subject-matter specialists are assigned to evaluate each submission. Editors ensure reviewers have no personal, financial, or institutional conflicts of interest with the authors.
3. Independent Evaluation: Reviewers assess experimental design, statistical robustness, clinical relevance, and ethical compliance.
4. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer reports, the editor renders one of five decisions:

• Accept as is
• Minor revisions required
• Major revisions required
• Reject with invitation to resubmit after substantial new experimentation
• Reject (Decline publication)

1. Revisions & Re-evaluation: Authors must provide a point-by-point rebuttal alongside tracked changes. Revised papers may be sent back to original reviewers for verification.

3. Confidentiality & Non-Disclosure

All unpublished manuscripts, reviewer evaluations, and editorial communications are strictly confidential. Editors and reviewers may not circulate, cite, or exploit unpublished findings for personal or institutional gain.

4. Reviewer & Editorial Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from evaluating any manuscript where they share recent co-authorship (within 3 years), direct institutional collaboration, or competitive commercial interests. When the Editor-in-Chief has a potential conflict, an independent Section Editor assumes sole decision-making authority.

5. Appeals and Complaints Procedure

Authors who believe an editorial decision was influenced by factual errors or procedural irregularities may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must provide detailed scientific evidence addressing reviewer concerns. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial committee; appeals do not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

6. Policy Governance & Updates

This policy was formulated in accordance with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Last updated: October 2026.