Peer Review Process

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy in Community Practice (JCPCP) follows a rigorous, transparent, and unbiased peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of all published manuscripts. Peer review serves as a fundamental component of scholarly publishing by improving manuscript quality through constructive feedback and supporting editorial decision-making.

All submissions undergo a structured evaluation process consisting of two main stages: initial editorial screening and a double-blind peer review conducted by independent experts in relevant subject areas.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team to determine its suitability for the journal. This preliminary assessment includes:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements
  • Clarity, structure, and overall academic quality
  • Plagiarism screening (maximum similarity threshold: ≤ 19%)

Based on this evaluation, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Reject
  • Resubmit after Major Revisions
  • Resubmit after Minor Revisions
  • Accept (rare cases without external review)

Authors are notified via the OJS system and provided with relevant editorial feedback where applicable. Revised submissions must be resubmitted for further consideration.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers under a double-blind review model, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Scientific rigor and methodological quality
  • Clarity, structure, and coherence of presentation
  • Ethical compliance and research integrity
  • Relevance and contribution to clinical pharmacy and community practice

Reviewers provide detailed reports and recommend one of the following outcomes:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Objectivity: Reviews must be fair, unbiased, and based solely on academic merit.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts must be treated as confidential documents.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline assignments where conflicts exist.
  • Constructive Feedback: Comments should be professional and aimed at improving the manuscript.
  • Timeliness: Reviews are generally expected within 2–3 weeks.

4. Revision and Editorial Decision

Authors are required to address all reviewer comments carefully and submit a detailed response letter along with the revised manuscript.

  • Minor revisions are typically evaluated by the editorial team.
  • Major revisions may be sent back to original reviewers for re-evaluation.
  • The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on reviewer recommendations and manuscript quality.

5. Transparency and Communication

All communications, reviewer reports, and editorial decisions are managed through the OJS platform to ensure transparency, traceability, and efficient communication throughout the review process.

6. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to report any suspected issues such as plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct. All such concerns are handled confidentially by the editorial office in accordance with international publication ethics standards.

7. Special Cases

  • Second Round Review: Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review if required.
  • Editorial Review: Some submissions may be decided directly by the editorial board for minor or desk-reviewed content.
  • Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting justified and evidence-based responses to the editorial office.

JCPCP is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and high-quality peer review process. The collaborative efforts of authors, reviewers, and editors ensure the publication of reliable and impactful scientific research.