Peer-Review Policy

IJF uses open-identity peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are visible to one another during review. Review reports and editorial correspondence remain confidential and are not routinely published.

Independent expert assessment with editorial oversight

Purpose of review

Peer review helps the editor evaluate scope, originality, methodological validity, ethical acceptability, reporting quality and the importance of a manuscript to pharmaceutical readers. It is an expert advisory process, not a guarantee that every error will be detected. The editor remains responsible for the decision.

Review pathway

  1. Administrative check. The journal checks completeness, author information, required declarations, file integrity and basic compliance.
  2. Editorial screening. An editor assesses scope, contribution, presentation, research integrity and whether external review is warranted. A manuscript may be declined at this stage.
  3. Reviewer selection. Normally at least two suitably qualified independent reviewers are invited. Availability, topic specialisation and conflicts may affect the number or sequence of invitations.
  4. Open-identity review. Reviewers assess the work constructively and disclose their identity to the authors. They must not contact authors outside the journal workflow.
  5. Editorial decision. The editor considers the reports and may request revision, seek further advice, accept or reject. Reviewer recommendations do not operate as votes.
  6. Revision and re-evaluation. Authors respond point by point. Revised work may return to the original or new reviewers before a final decision.

Possible decisions

Revision required

The manuscript may become suitable after specified changes. A revision invitation is not a promise of acceptance.

Accept

The scientific content is approved, subject to any remaining editorial and production requirements.

Decline

The paper is unsuitable, insufficiently robust or cannot be brought to the required standard within reasonable revision.

Further assessment

The editor may obtain statistical, methodological, ethical or additional subject advice when reports conflict or specialist input is needed.

Reviewer identity, reports and confidentiality

By submitting to IJF, authors accept the open-identity model. Reviewer names are disclosed within the review process, but reports are not automatically attached to the published article. Manuscripts, data and correspondence must be treated as confidential by reviewers, editors and journal staff. Unpublished material must not be used for personal advantage or shared without permission.

Conflicts and reviewer suggestions

Authors may suggest reviewers with appropriate institutional email addresses and may identify people who should not review for a specific, defensible reason. The editor is not required to use these suggestions. Recent collaborators, close personal relationships, direct competitors, supervisors, students, same-institution colleagues and anyone with a material financial or intellectual interest are normally unsuitable. Reviewers must declare conflicts before accepting.

Editorial safeguards

  • Editors, board members and publisher-associated authors receive no preferential treatment; an independent editor handles a submission when a conflict exists.
  • Invited articles and special-issue papers are assessed to the same integrity and quality standards, with external review when appropriate.
  • Suspected plagiarism, fabricated review, manipulated data, paper-mill activity or undisclosed conflicts may pause review while the concern is examined.
  • The journal does not promise acceptance or a fixed decision time. Authors receive status information through the OJS record.

Appeal

An author may appeal a rejection by identifying a substantive error in the review or decision and supplying a focused evidence-based response. Disagreement alone is not sufficient. Appeals are considered under the journal's appeals and complaints policy; a fresh editor or adviser may be used where practicable.

Reviewer guidelines Editorial process