Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Pharmacy and Halal Studies (JPHS) applies a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are essential to ensuring that editorial decisions are grounded in scientific rigor, ethical compliance, clarity of reporting, and relevance to pharmacy and halal assurance sciences. These guidelines describe how to deliver fair, constructive, timely, and confidential reviews consistent with internationally recognized best practices.

1) Reviewer Responsibilities

Objectivity: Provide an expert, evidence-based assessment; avoid bias and evaluate the work on its scientific merit.
Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and all related communications as confidential documents during and after review.
Conflicts of interest (COI): Disclose any potential COI and decline where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Timeliness: Accept reviews only if you can meet the deadline; notify the editor immediately if delays occur.
Constructive feedback: Provide actionable suggestions to improve validity, transparency, and presentation; avoid personal remarks.

2) Before Accepting an Invitation

2.1 Expertise and Workload

Accept only if the manuscript falls within your expertise and you can deliver a thorough review within the stated timeframe.

2.2 Conflicts of Interest (COI)

Disclose any financial or non-financial relationships/activities that may be perceived as a competing interest (e.g., collaboration, competition, institutional ties, consultancy, patents, or funding). If the COI is significant, decline the review; if uncertain, disclose and follow the editor’s guidance.

2.3 Confidentiality and Use of Third-Party Assistance (Including Tools)

Do not share manuscript files or content with unauthorized parties. Do not upload manuscript text, figures, tables, or supplementary files to external services when confidentiality cannot be assured. If you wish to consult a colleague/trainee, request editorial permission and disclose the assistance in confidential comments to the editor (without compromising anonymity).

3) What to Evaluate (JPHS Review Criteria)

3.1 Scope Fit and Contribution

Novelty and contribution: Is the research question meaningful, and is the contribution clearly articulated?
Relevance: Does the work advance pharmaceutical sciences/practice and/or halal assurance in medicines and pharmaceutical products in a way appropriate to JPHS?
Claims support: Are conclusions supported by evidence, and are limitations stated appropriately?

3.2 Methodology, Reproducibility, and Statistics

Are methods appropriate, sufficiently detailed, and reproducible?
Are sampling, controls/comparators, endpoints, and analytical choices justified?
Are statistical methods correct and interpretation appropriate (e.g., assumptions, uncertainty, multiple testing, missing data handling)?

3.3 Ethics, Safety, and Regulatory/Compliance (As Applicable)

Human studies: ethics approval, consent, privacy protections, and risk management.
Animal studies: ethics approval and welfare considerations.
Pharmacy/biomedical safety: hazardous materials, antimicrobial/biological risks, safe handling, and appropriate disclosures.
Halal assurance (if claimed): clarity of definitions, traceability evidence, and auditability of critical ingredients/processes.

3.4 Research Integrity and Publication Ethics

Check internal consistency across text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials.
Flag concerns about plagiarism, redundant publication, image manipulation, fabrication/falsification, or undisclosed COI in confidential comments to the editor with specific evidence.

3.5 Reporting Completeness (Recommended)

Where relevant, assess completeness of reporting using established guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA). The EQUATOR Network provides a comprehensive library of reporting guidelines, and PRISMA 2020 is recommended for systematic reviews/meta-analyses.

4) How to Write Your Review

4.1 Comments to the Authors

Brief summary: 2–4 sentences describing aims and main findings.
Major issues: validity, methodology, key analyses, interpretation, missing controls, critical reporting omissions.
Minor issues: clarity, organization, language, references, figure/table labeling.
Actionability: for each issue, recommend a specific corrective action (e.g., add analysis, clarify methods, temper claims).

4.2 Confidential Comments to the Editor

Use this field for sensitive concerns (e.g., ethics/integrity issues, suspected plagiarism, serious COI, safety risk, or reasons the work may be unreliable). Provide evidence-based reasoning. Many high-impact journals explicitly separate comments to authors from confidential comments to editors.

4.3 Recommendation Options (Typical OJS Labels)

In OJS, reviewers are often asked to select a recommendation. Choose the option that best matches your comments:

Accept Submission: scientifically sound; only trivial editorial changes needed.
Revisions Required: publishable after revision; issues are correctable without re-review in some cases (editor may still re-review).
Resubmit for Review: major methodological/analytical revisions needed; requires a new round of peer review after resubmission.
Resubmit Elsewhere: the study may have value but is out of scope or unsuitable for JPHS in its current framing.
Decline Submission: not suitable due to fundamental flaws, unreliable findings, serious ethical concerns, or insufficient contribution.

Your recommendation must be consistent with the severity of issues raised and supported by clear rationale.

5) Practical Steps in OJS (Reviewer Workflow)

Log in to OJS and open the assigned submission.
Accept or decline promptly. If declining, you may suggest alternative reviewers (optional).
Download the manuscript/supplementary files and maintain confidentiality.
Complete the review form: Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to the Editor.
If you upload an annotated file, remove all personal identifiers and ensure it does not reveal your identity (double-blind requirement).
Select your recommendation (Section 4.3) and submit by the deadline.

6) After Submitting Your Review

Do not share the manuscript or your review report. Do not use unpublished information for personal advantage. If you discover major issues after submission, notify the editor promptly.