Editorial and Peer-Review Process
The National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology (NJPPP) follows a rigorous, fair, ethical, and double-blind peer-review process to ensure that published articles meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical conduct, and relevance to the journal's scope.
The editorial and peer-review process is designed to maintain editorial independence, protect the confidentiality of authors and reviewers, and promote integrity and transparency throughout the publication process.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system in accordance with the journal's Instructions for Authors.
At submission, authors are required to ensure that the manuscript:
falls within the scope of NJPPP;
complies with the journal's formatting and submission requirements;
meets applicable research-ethics requirements;
contains appropriate declarations concerning authorship, conflicts of interest, funding, and other relevant matters;
has not been published previously in substantially the same form; and
is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the submitted manuscript and agree to its submission to NJPPP.
2. Initial Technical and Administrative Screening
Upon receipt, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial office.
The screening may include assessment of:
completeness of the submission;
compliance with the journal's manuscript preparation requirements;
author and affiliation information;
required ethical statements and declarations;
references and manuscript structure;
figures, tables, and supplementary materials, where applicable;
compliance with authorship requirements; and
potential research-integrity concerns.
Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.
3. Similarity and Originality Screening
NJPPP may use Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-detection system to screen submitted manuscripts for substantial overlap with previously published or publicly available material.
Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team rather than being judged solely according to a predetermined percentage.
The significance of detected similarity depends on factors including:
the amount and location of overlapping text;
whether the material is properly cited;
whether the overlap occurs in standard methodological or technical terminology;
whether the overlap involves previously published work by the same authors; and
whether the detected material raises concerns about plagiarism, duplicate publication, or inappropriate text reuse.
Where substantial or inappropriate overlap is identified, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for clarification or correction, rejected, or subjected to further investigation in accordance with the journal's research-integrity and publication-ethics policies.
4. Editorial Assessment
After completing the initial screening, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor evaluates the manuscript for its suitability for NJPPP.
The editorial assessment considers, as appropriate:
relevance to the journal's scope;
scientific quality;
originality and potential contribution;
methodological soundness;
clarity and completeness of presentation;
ethical compliance;
research integrity;
appropriateness of the study design and analysis; and
compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific merit, or present significant ethical or methodological concerns may be declined without external peer review.
5. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts considered suitable for external peer review are assigned to appropriately qualified and independent reviewers.
NJPPP normally seeks at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic and scientific expertise, research experience, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript. Editors should avoid assigning reviewers who have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity or confidentiality of the review.
6. Double-Blind Peer Review
NJPPP uses a double-blind peer-review model.
Under this system:
reviewers are not informed of the identities or affiliations of the authors;
authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers; and
both authors and reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the peer-review process.
Authors should prepare manuscripts in a manner that minimizes identifying information wherever reasonably possible.
Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every case because reviewers may be able to infer authorship from the subject matter, citations, methodology, or other characteristics of a manuscript.
Reviewers assess manuscripts objectively and provide constructive comments concerning scientific quality, methodology, originality, interpretation, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and overall contribution to the field.
7. Peer-Review Timeline
Reviewers are normally given up to 28 days to complete their evaluations.
If an invited reviewer does not respond within the expected timeframe, the journal may withdraw the invitation and seek an alternative qualified reviewer.
The journal may extend a reviewer's deadline when necessary. The quality and independence of peer review take priority over meeting a fixed timeframe.
8. Editorial Decision
After peer review, the assigned editor evaluates the reviewers' reports together with the manuscript and other relevant information.
Possible editorial decisions include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the editorial process but do not automatically determine the final decision.
The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor with appropriate authority, based on the scientific quality of the manuscript, reviewers' assessments, the journal's scope, and applicable ethical and editorial standards.
Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review or further expert advice.
9. Revision and Author Response
When revision is requested, authors should submit:
a revised version of the manuscript; and
a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer and editorial comment.
Authors are normally expected to submit revisions within three weeks, unless an alternative deadline has been agreed with the editorial office.
The editor evaluates whether the revisions adequately address the concerns raised during peer review.
10. Re-Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts
A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, particularly when substantial scientific or methodological changes have been requested.
Where appropriate, the editor may instead seek evaluation from alternative reviewers.
NJPPP may conduct an additional similarity check of a revised manuscript when considered necessary to verify originality and compliance with the journal's research-integrity requirements.
11. Final Acceptance
A manuscript is formally accepted only after the editorial team determines that it satisfies the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements and that the required revisions have been adequately addressed.
Acceptance is an editorial decision and is not guaranteed by payment of any applicable publication charge.
12. Copyediting and Language Editing
Accepted manuscripts undergo editorial and production processing to improve clarity, consistency, formatting, and conformity with NJPPP's publication style.
Where necessary, language and copyediting may be undertaken to improve the readability and linguistic quality of the manuscript.
Editorial and language corrections do not alter the scientific content or interpretation of the work without appropriate author involvement.
13. Production and Galley Proof
Following acceptance and editorial processing, the manuscript is prepared for publication.
Authors receive a galley proof or equivalent publication proof for final checking.
Authors are expected to review the proof carefully and report essential corrections, particularly concerning:
author names and affiliations;
figures and tables;
references;
numerical or typographical errors; and
other factual or production errors.
Proof corrections should normally be limited to necessary amendments and should not involve substantial changes to the accepted manuscript.
14. Author Approval and Publication
Following completion of the production process and author proof checking, the article is published online in NJPPP with its assigned bibliographic information and Crossref DOI, where applicable.
Published articles are made immediately and freely accessible online under the journal's Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
15. Post-Publication Corrections
NJPPP is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published scholarly record.
If a significant error or concern is identified after publication, the journal may publish an appropriate correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue.
Post-publication actions are handled in accordance with the journal's Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern Policy and applicable publication-ethics standards.
16. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual or procedural error affected the decision.
Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address specific issues concerning the editorial process or evaluation of the manuscript.
Complaints concerning editorial or peer-review procedures are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate designated editor.
The journal seeks to handle appeals and complaints fairly, confidentially, and without prejudice.
17. Confidentiality and Editorial Integrity
All manuscripts and associated materials are treated as confidential throughout the editorial and peer-review process.
Editors, reviewers, and other individuals involved in manuscript evaluation must not disclose confidential information or use unpublished material for personal or professional advantage.
The journal maintains a clear separation between editorial decision-making and commercial considerations. Article processing charges, waivers, discounts, advertising, sponsorship, or other financial considerations do not influence the scientific evaluation or editorial decision on a manuscript.
18. Artificial Intelligence in Editorial and Peer-Review Processes
NJPPP recognizes that artificial intelligence and generative AI tools may be used in scholarly communication and editorial workflows.
Authors must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scientific content of their manuscripts.
Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and must not upload confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, or other unpublished information to AI systems where doing so would compromise confidentiality.
19. Publication Ethics
NJPPP is committed to responsible scholarly publishing and follows recognized principles of publication ethics, including the COPE Core Practices.
The journal may investigate suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, authorship disputes, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, and other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Appropriate editorial action is taken according to the circumstances and the journal's applicable ethical policies.
20. Commitment to Continuous Improvement
NJPPP periodically reviews its editorial and peer-review procedures to ensure that they remain appropriate, effective, transparent, and consistent with recognized international standards of scholarly publishing.
The journal prioritizes scientific integrity, editorial independence, rigorous double-blind peer review, confidentiality, fairness, and transparency throughout the publication process.
