Peer-Review Policy

The National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology (NJPPP) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent double-blind peer-review process to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

The journal seeks to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated objectively by appropriately qualified experts while maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the peer-review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it:

• falls within the scope of NJPPP;

• meets the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;

• contains sufficient scientific and methodological information for evaluation;

• complies with relevant ethical and research-integrity requirements; and

• is suitable for external peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or are clearly outside the scope of the journal may be declined without external peer review.

2. Peer-Review Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

NJPPP uses a double-blind peer-review model:

• reviewers are not informed of the identities or affiliations of the authors;

• authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers; and

• reviewers and authors are expected to maintain the confidentiality of 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, as reviewers may be able to infer authorship from the subject matter, citations, methodology, or other characteristics of a manuscript.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their relevant academic and scientific expertise, research experience, and suitability to evaluate the manuscript.

Editors should make reasonable efforts to select reviewers who are independent of the authors and who do not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessment.

Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially;

• assess the scientific validity, originality, methodology, interpretation, and presentation of the work;

• provide constructive and evidence-based comments;

• identify relevant methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns;

• identify potential plagiarism or inappropriate reuse of published material when recognized;

• maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and its contents; and

• complete reviews within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or other advantage.

Reviewer comments should be professional, respectful, and focused on improving the scientific quality of the manuscript.

5. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewer identities and the contents of confidential peer-review communications are protected by NJPPP.

Reviewer reports are shared with the corresponding author as part of the editorial decision process, normally without revealing the reviewer's identity.

Reviewers must not disclose their participation in the review or share the manuscript or confidential review materials with third parties without authorization from the journal.

6. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally given 21 days to complete their evaluation.

If an invited reviewer does not respond within the expected timeframe, the journal may withdraw the invitation and invite an alternative qualified reviewer in order to minimize unnecessary delays.

The journal may extend a reviewer's deadline when circumstances warrant, provided that doing so does not compromise the efficiency or integrity of the review process.

7. Editorial Decision

Following receipt of the reviewers' reports, the assigned editor evaluates the recommendations and comments together with the manuscript.

The editor may make one of the following decisions:

• Accept

• Minor Revision

• Major Revision

• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are an important component of the editorial decision-making process, but they do not automatically determine the final outcome. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor with appropriate authority, based on the reviewers' assessments, the scientific quality of the manuscript, the journal's scope, and applicable editorial and ethical standards.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor may seek an additional independent review or obtain further expert advice before reaching a decision.

8. Communication with the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is notified of the editorial decision and is provided with the relevant reviewer comments and any additional editorial comments that may assist in revising the manuscript.

Reviewer comments may be edited or withheld where necessary to protect confidentiality, prevent inappropriate content, or maintain the integrity of the editorial process.

9. Revision of Manuscripts

When a revision is requested, authors should submit the revised manuscript within three weeks, unless an alternative deadline has been agreed with the editorial office.

Authors should provide a clear point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when the editor considers this necessary.

Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without prior communication with the editorial office, may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or rejected.

10. Further Review of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, to alternative reviewers.

The extent of further review depends on the nature and magnitude of the revisions and the editor's assessment of whether the reviewers' expertise is required to evaluate the changes.

11. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was made as a result of a significant factual or procedural error may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals should address specific concerns regarding the editorial process or interpretation of the manuscript and should not simply disagree with the reviewers' scientific opinions.

Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate designated editor. The journal may seek additional independent advice when necessary.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

12. Peer-Review Integrity

NJPPP does not guarantee acceptance or accelerated publication in exchange for payment.

Article processing charges, where applicable, do not influence peer-review decisions or the scientific assessment of manuscripts.

The journal does not compromise the rigor or independence of peer review in order to accelerate publication.

13. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not upload or disclose unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or other confidential editorial information to external generative AI tools or services when doing so would compromise confidentiality.

Any use of AI-assisted tools in connection with peer review must comply with NJPPP's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy and applicable confidentiality requirements.

14. Expected Review-to-Decision Timeline

Under normal circumstances and assuming timely reviewer responses and author revisions, NJPPP aims to reach an initial or final publication decision within approximately 6–8 weeks from submission.

This timeframe is an approximate target rather than a guarantee. Actual processing times may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, the need for additional review, the extent of revisions, and other editorial circumstances.

NJPPP prioritizes the quality, integrity, and fairness of peer review over meeting a fixed publication deadline.