Peer Review Policy
Editorial Screening
All manuscripts submitted to the Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences (AJPHS) are initially assessed by the editorial team to determine their suitability for the journal. The initial screening considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scientific and technical quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to the journal's submission requirements.
Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or methodological deficiencies, ethical concerns, or content outside the scope of the journal may be rejected at this stage without external peer review.
Peer Review Process
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are subjected to single-blind peer review, in which the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are expected to provide objective and constructive assessments of the scientific quality, originality, methodology, interpretation of results, relevance, and overall presentation of the manuscript.
Authors may be invited to suggest potential reviewers during manuscript submission; however, providing reviewer suggestions is optional. Suggested reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors and should not have relationships or conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the review. The journal is under no obligation to use author-suggested reviewers, and the selection and invitation of reviewers remain entirely at the discretion of the editorial team.
Editorial Decision
Based on the reviewers' reports and the editorial assessment, a manuscript may be accepted, accepted subject to revision, returned for major or minor revision, or rejected. Reviewer comments and editorial recommendations are communicated to the corresponding author.
When revision is requested, authors are normally required to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editorial comment has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.
Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the handling editor may seek an additional independent review or make an editorial decision based on the scientific merits of the manuscript and the reviewers' comments.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor/handling editorial team. Editorial decisions are made on the basis of scientific quality, relevance, originality, ethical compliance, and the peer-review reports.
Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and should not participate in the evaluation of manuscripts where such conflicts could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the impartiality of the review process.
Post-Acceptance Process
Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo copyediting for language, grammar, formatting, journal style, and presentation. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author for final verification and correction. Authors are normally requested to return corrected proofs within three days.
The submission, peer-review, revision, editorial decision, and proof-correction processes are managed electronically through the journal's online submission system.
Accepted articles may be published online as In Press articles before assignment to a regular journal issue, facilitating timely dissemination of the published research.
Plagiarism Policy
AJPHS routinely screens submitted manuscripts for plagiarism and text similarity using Turnitin and/or iThenticate. Similarity reports are evaluated by the editorial team, and manuscripts containing significant plagiarism or unattributed content may be rejected. Cases identified after publication are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.
