The Advances in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences International Journal follows a double-blind peer-review process to evaluate the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process to support fair and independent evaluation.
Peer review helps the journal assess whether a manuscript presents reliable, original and ethically prepared research suitable for publication.
The process also helps authors improve scientific clarity, methodology, data presentation, discussion and overall academic quality.
The manuscript is examined for relevance to medical, pharmaceutical, biomedical or healthcare sciences.
Required sections, author information, declarations, tables and figures are reviewed.
The manuscript may be examined for plagiarism, duplication or substantial overlap.
Ethical approval, informed consent, privacy and conflict disclosures may be assessed.
Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, lack essential information or present serious scientific or ethical concerns may be returned or declined before external review.
| Stage | General Process |
|---|---|
| 1. Submission | The author submits the manuscript and required supporting information. |
| 2. Editorial Screening | The editorial team checks scope, structure, originality and ethical requirements. |
| 3. Reviewer Selection | Suitable subject specialists are invited to evaluate the manuscript. |
| 4. Independent Review | Reviewers assess scientific quality, methodology, evidence and presentation. |
| 5. Editorial Decision | The editor considers reviewer reports and the overall suitability of the manuscript. |
| 6. Revision | Authors may be asked to revise the manuscript and respond to comments. |
| 7. Final Evaluation | The revised manuscript is evaluated before the final publication decision. |
Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, academic experience, availability, independence and suitability for the manuscript.
Individuals with significant conflicts of interest, close collaboration or another relationship that may affect impartiality should not review the manuscript.
Whether the manuscript provides a new or meaningful scientific contribution.
Whether the study addresses an important medical or pharmaceutical question.
Whether the study design, sample, procedures and analysis are appropriate.
Whether the findings are presented clearly, accurately and consistently.
Whether the interpretation is supported by results and relevant literature.
Whether appropriate approval, consent and privacy protections are reported.
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential materials.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, discuss or upload unpublished manuscripts to unauthorized external systems, including generative artificial intelligence tools.
| Decision | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Accept | The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to remaining editorial and production requirements. |
| Minor Revision | Limited corrections or clarifications are required. |
| Major Revision | Substantial changes are required in methods, analysis, discussion or presentation. |
| Reject | The manuscript is unsuitable because of scope, scientific quality, originality or ethical concerns. |
Authors receiving a revision decision should respond carefully to each reviewer and editorial comment.
Reviewer recommendations guide the editorial process but do not independently determine publication.
The final decision is made by the authorized editor after considering reviewer reports, author responses, scientific quality, ethical compliance and relevance to the journal.
Editors and reviewers should disclose financial, institutional, academic or personal relationships that may influence their judgment.
Where a significant conflict exists, the manuscript may be reassigned to another qualified reviewer or editor.
Authors may submit a respectful appeal where they believe that a decision involved a significant factual error, procedural concern or conflict of interest.
An appeal should provide clear scientific or procedural grounds. General disagreement with reviewer comments does not automatically justify reversal of a decision.
| Journal Name | Advances in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences International Journal |
| Online ISSN | 3117-7069 |
| Print ISSN | 3117-7077 |
| Review Model | Double-blind peer review |
| Initial Assessment | Scope, completeness, originality, scientific quality and ethical requirements |
| Reviewer Selection | Based on subject expertise, independence and suitability |
| Reviewer Reports | Confidential, objective and constructive |
| Final Decision | Made by the authorized editorial team |
| Decision Types | Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject |
Peer-Review Notice: Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee external review, acceptance or publication. The journal may decline manuscripts that fall outside its scope or fail to satisfy essential scientific, ethical or editorial requirements.