Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Science And Technology

General Guidelines For Reviewers:

Manuscript Evaluation Checklist

During evaluation please check for these qualifications for maintaining the quality of the manuscript

Title: Should be readily understood, clear and concise, informative and related to the content.

Abstract:

• It should be checked for the hypothesis to be clear and concise along with stating the problem. The hypothesis, or purpose, should be included in the first paragraph, usually in the last sentence.

• Methodology is to be clearly identified and described briefly.

• Results must be summarized; also data and statistics should be included where necessary.

• Conclusions and findings should be stated.

Introduction:

Introduction is to be checked for the following:

• Early introduction of the general problem

• Precisely stated questions that are to be answered

• Clear and concise hypothesis

• Reachability of the problem

• Preciseness of the hypothesis

• Identification of the assumption of the study

• Operational identification of pertinent terms

• Significance of the problem discussed

• Justification of the research

• Brief summary of relevant literature and its implications for the research problem under study

• Relevance of the citation and its pertinence to the research problem including the time factor.

• Citations must provide rationale for research and should also be a primary source.

• Relationship of the problem to previous research should also be made clear.

Methods and Materials:

• The subject population should be described.

• If the subjects are humans or the sample was drawn from humans it is mandatory to obtain an informed consent or institutional review board approval. Please check for the necessary.

• If the subjects were animals, were appropriate standards of human care followed, with animal care review committee approval?

• The following statement must be contained if animals were utilized:

• All animals received care in compliance with the “Guide for the Care and

• Use of Laboratory Animals” published by the National Institutes of Health

• (NIH Publication 85-23, revised 1985.)

• Justification of the sampling method.

• Method of data collection must permit sufficiently for the judgment of their appropriateness for the study presented.

• Appropriate design to study the hypothesis or questions.

• Inclusion of proper controls where appropriate.

• Variables should be mentioned unambiguously and identified.

• Replication of the design should be explicit enough to be replicated.

• Appropriateness of the statistical tests used. Appropriateness of the tests to the design.

• (If you are unsure of the adequacy of statistical test selection please make note of it on the ‘Comments by Editor’ form and a statistical consult will be made.)

Results must contain:

• Clear and precise and logically organized output.

• Sufficient information to answer the research question.

• Statistics reports with values. (where applicable)

• Statistics relevant to the research hypothesis.

• Complete, easily understandable tables and figures.

Data presented as a figure or a table. (A figure containing the same data shouldn't be included if the data is listed in the table, and vice versa. Consider asking the authors to publish the descriptive data in table form as an addition to the manuscript if there are considerable data.)

Discussion must containp:

• Clearly stated conclusions.

• Substantial evidence for the conclusion presented.

• Revisited hypothesis.

• Discussion of the implicated findings.

• Proper generalization of the research with respect to the population studied. (ex: results from laboratory study cannot be used for clinical practice)

• Description of possible sources of sampling bias or errors.

• Relevance and reliability of the previous research data presented.

• Valid data and its report of pertinence to the present study.

• Identification of problems and limitations of the study and their discussion.

• Suggestion of future research recommendation.

Conclusion:

An end paragraph of the discussion section. A summary paragraph can also be added before the conclusion paragraph if necessary.

References:

• They must be organized and in the required style of the journal. Primary sources (journals) are more preferable than the secondary sources (textbooks) for the citations.
• As a general rule, manuscripts should contain significant reference to previously published work to support the discussion.
• Although no standard is set, it is generally accepted that the reference numbers meet the style of the paper. Please refer to the chart below for reference number. These are general guidelines.

Tables and figures:

Tables and Figures should represent the results in a clear and concise format. Good pictographically representation is expected. Use of the advanced technology and the available 2D and 3D formats can enhance the readability of the figures. But in no way the pictures should be manipulated just to match the results without relevance. Histograms and bar diagrams are also to be presented in an interesting manner. Even a video clip of limited size can also be included if it provides a stronger base.

Form and Style:

• Report must be clear.

• Report must be logically organized.

• Tone should be impartial, unbiased and scientific.

• Follow instructions for author format (else can be sent for revision unto the required format)

• Must contain key words.

Few important guidelines:

• The steps listed above are imperative and must be strictly taken into account when assessing a manuscript. Add a subheading if there are any comments or errors with regard to the page's line numbers, and then include both the error and its fix.
• Do not be reluctant to offer a fair assessment. Up until the target quality is attained, the number of revisions can be addressed.
• Please reject the manuscripts which do not fall under the scope of the journal.
• In case of rejection please state the reason clearly and guide them for further action if required. (Ex: if the rejection is due to the improper language and good subject you can suggest them for language editing. If the rejection is due to the subject which is out of scope state it. Etc..,)
• Maintain the language's quality. It must be understandable to readers around the world.

Ethical Obligations:

1. The reviewer should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

2. The reviewer should give all articles submitted for publication proper consideration as soon as possible. The editor alone is in charge of deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript.

3. The reviewers should not disclose information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. After a decision the editor may disclose manuscript titles and authors’ names of papers that have been accepted for publication.

4. The reviewer should respect the authors' right to intellectual freedom.

5. Editorial consideration of the manuscript in any way or form by the author-editor would constitute a conflict of interest.

6. Without the author's permission, a reviewer should not use unpublished data or interpretations from a submitted publication in their own work.

7. When a manuscript is so closely related to the research of the reviewer as to create a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript.

8. An author may ask the editor to forego using particular reviewers while evaluating a paper.

These are the general and ethical guidelines you need to adhere to achieve the quality output of a research paper.