Journal of Pharmacy and Halal Studies (JPHS) implements a double-blind, peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation process. JPHS is committed to rigorous, ethical, and transparent editorial practice in pharmaceutical sciences and halal assurance, ensuring that editorial decisions are made solely on scholarly merit, methodological robustness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Core Principles

• Scientific rigor and integrity: Decisions are grounded in evidence quality, methodological soundness, and research integrity.
• Fairness and independence: Manuscripts are evaluated without discrimination and without commercial influence.
• Confidentiality: Submissions and review reports are treated as confidential.
• Conflict of interest (COI) management: Editors and reviewers must disclose potential COIs and recuse themselves when appropriate.
• Equal treatment: JPHS does not offer fast-track/expedited peer review upon request; all manuscripts follow the same workflow.

Peer Review Workflow

1) Submission and Technical Screening

Upon submission via the online system, the editorial office performs a technical screening to confirm:

• completeness of required files and metadata (manuscript, figures/tables, supplementary materials);
• compliance with format and author guidelines;
• appropriate anonymization of the blinded manuscript for double-blind review;
• presence of essential statements where applicable (ethics approval, informed consent, animal welfare, safety, funding, COI, data availability).

Manuscripts that do not meet technical requirements may be returned for correction prior to editorial assessment.

2) Editorial Assessment (Desk Evaluation)

The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or a Handling Editor evaluates the submission for:

• Scope fit (pharmacy and halal studies across discovery–development–manufacturing–quality–distribution–patient use);
• Originality and contribution to pharmaceutical science and/or halal assurance;
• Methodological adequacy, statistical appropriateness, and completeness of reporting;
• Ethical acceptability and regulatory appropriateness (e.g., human/animal ethics, biosafety, clinical trial considerations, responsible claims).

A manuscript may receive a desk rejection if it is out of scope, lacks minimum scientific quality, or raises unresolved ethical/integrity concerns.

3) Similarity Screening and Integrity Checks

JPHS conducts similarity screening and editorial integrity checks to identify potential plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate image manipulation, fabrication/falsification concerns, or other integrity issues. If concerns arise, authors may be asked for clarification, raw/primary data, or supporting documentation; serious cases may result in rejection.

4) Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Submissions that pass desk evaluation are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the manuscript (e.g., pharmaceutics/pharmaceutical technology, pharmacology/toxicology, pharmacognosy/phytochemistry, analytical pharmacy/medicinal chemistry, pharmaceutical microbiology/biotechnology, clinical and community pharmacy, pharmaceutical quality assurance, and halal assurance in pharmaceuticals).

• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal).
• Reviewers must agree to confidentiality and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage.
• Where required, the editor may appoint additional specialist reviewers (e.g., biostatistics, analytical validation, halal compliance).

5) Double-Blind Peer Review (Evaluation Criteria)

Reviewers provide structured feedback and recommendations based on criteria commonly applied in reputable pharmacy publishing, including:

• Scientific quality: robustness of study design, controls/comparators, sampling, and statistical analysis.
• Pharmaceutical relevance: clinical, technological, analytical, biological, or regulatory significance to pharmacy practice/science.
• Method transparency and reproducibility: sufficient detail to replicate procedures (e.g., formulation parameters, analytical methods, validation approach, microbiological methods).
• Data integrity: consistency between methods, results, and conclusions; appropriate handling of outliers and uncertainty.
• Quality systems alignment: where applicable, alignment with recognized good practices (e.g., validation concepts, stability rationale, quality-by-design logic).
• Halal assurance substantiation (when applicable): clear description of materials/ingredients origin, processing aids, critical control points, traceability, and evidence supporting halal-related claims (e.g., documentation, analytical confirmation, or certification context where relevant).
• Presentation quality: clarity of writing, structure, tables/figures, referencing, and compliance with reporting standards.

6) Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment, JPHS issues one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Editors may reach a decision that differs from reviewer recommendations when scientifically justified. The decision letter will include consolidated comments and required actions.

7) Revisions and Author Response

For revision decisions, authors must submit:

• a revised manuscript (with changes highlighted or tracked where feasible); and
• a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer/editor comment with clear justifications and manuscript line references.

Major revisions are commonly returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation. Multiple revision rounds may be required until the manuscript meets JPHS standards.

8) Ethical and Compliance Requirements (Field-Specific)

JPHS expects rigorous ethical compliance consistent with international norms in pharmaceutical research. When applicable, manuscripts must include:

• Human studies: ethics approval, informed consent, and protection of participant confidentiality.
• Animal studies: ethics approval and adherence to animal welfare principles.
• Clinical investigations: appropriate registration and transparent reporting where relevant.
• Safety and hazards: disclosure of relevant chemical/biological hazards and safe handling considerations.
• Halal-related claims: claims must be supported by auditable evidence (traceability, documented controls, and/or suitable analytical/quality assurance approaches).

9) Production (Copyediting, Proofing, and Publication)

Accepted manuscripts proceed to production, which may include copyediting, formatting, and proofreading. Authors will receive proofs to review for accuracy before publication. Substantive changes at proof stage are limited to corrections of factual or typographical errors.

Transparency and Research Reporting

JPHS encourages authors to follow appropriate reporting guidelines for their study type (e.g., clinical trials, observational studies, systematic reviews). Where feasible, JPHS promotes research transparency through clear methodological reporting, data availability statements, and responsible citation practice.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned statement addressing the scientific basis of the decision and reviewer comments. Appeals are assessed by the EIC and/or an independent editor when appropriate. The outcome of an appeal is final.