Reviewer Resources

Journal of Public Health and Pharmacological Interventions
(J. Public Health Pharmacol. Interv.). The Journal of Public Health and Pharmacological Interventions values the essential role that reviewers play in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. This page provides all necessary guidelines, tools, and expectations to support reviewers in performing high-quality, ethical, and timely peer reviews.

1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

✔ Evaluate the manuscript fairly, objectively, and confidentially.

✔ Provide constructive comments that help authors improve their work.

✔ Identify methodological flaws, ethical concerns, or data inconsistencies.

✔ Declare any conflicts of interest.

✔ Review within the assigned time period or request an extension if needed.

✔ Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content and peer review comments.

2. Review Process Overview

The journal follows a double-blind peer review procedure:

1.    The editor assigns the manuscript to qualified reviewers.

2.    Reviewer receives the anonymized manuscript and evaluation form.

3.    Reviewer completes the assessment with detailed comments.

4.    Recommendations are submitted through the online system or email.

5.    Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports.

Possible reviewer recommendations include:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Reject

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on:

Quality and Originality

  • Novelty of the research question
  • Contribution to public health or pharmacological science

Scientific Rigor

  • Clarity of methods
  • Accuracy and reliability of data
  • Appropriateness of statistical analyses

Structure and Presentation

  • Clear problem statement
  • Well-organized results
  • Logical discussion and valid conclusions

Ethical Standards

  • Ethical approval for human/animal studies
  • Transparency in conflicts of interest
  • Research integrity and originality

Language and Clarity

  • Grammar, clarity, readability
  • Suitability for an international audience

4. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must adhere to international ethical guidelines:

Confidentiality

  • Do not share or discuss manuscript content.
  • Do not store the manuscript once the review is completed.

Objectivity

  • Avoid personal criticism of authors.
  • Base comments on academic merit.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if they:

  • Have worked with the authors recently
  • Have a financial interest related to the study topic
  • Have any relationship that could influence their judgment

5. Reviewer Guidelines- How to Structure Comments

A helpful review includes:

A. Summary of the Manuscript

A brief, neutral summary of what the study attempts to do.

B. Major Comments

Key issues affecting scientific validity or clarity:

  • Methodological concerns
  • Study design issues
  • Missing data
  • Ethical ambiguities

C. Minor Comments

Small improvements:

  • Language corrections
  • Formatting suggestions
  • Minor clarifications

D. Recommendation

  • Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

Provide clear justification for your recommendation.

6. Reviewer Tools and Resources

✔ Reviewer Checklist

  • Is the title appropriate?
  • Are the objectives clear?
  • Is the methodology sound?
  • Are results accurate and well explained?
  • Are ethical guidelines followed?
  • Is the conclusion justified by results?
  • Is the manuscript written clearly?
  • Is the similarity low and originality high?

✔ Ethical Guidelines

Follows COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

✔ Templates

The journal provides:

  • Reviewer Comment Template
  • Confidential Remarks to Editor Template
  • Evaluation Score Sheet

7. Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge the valuable contribution of reviewers, the journal may provide:

  • Reviewer certificates
  • Annual recognition lists
  • Invitations to join editorial board
  • Discounts or waivers (if APC applies)
  • Priority consideration for their own submissions

8. How to Become a Reviewer

Qualified researchers can join the reviewer panel by submitting:

  • Updated CV
  • List of research interests
  • Publications
  • Affiliation details

Reviewers are selected based on expertise in public health or pharmacology.