[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Registration::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
:: For Reviewers ::
 | Post date: 2019/04/15 | 
For Reviewers
The reviewers are registered by IJPT manager and an e-mail contacting username and password is sent automatically to the reviewers. The registered reviewers can logging to their Reviewer Centre by entering the journal site and selecting login type as ‘Reviewing articles’. You can also change your ‘Password’ here to keep your account information current. Reviewers will be notified by e-mail of an invitation to review a journal article. The e-mail contains article title, article abstract, hyperlink invitation responses and reviewers login information. By clicking either ‘Accept: I will review the article’ or ‘Decline: I will not review the article’, the appropriate hyperlink sends the response to the journal's editorial office. Only accept an invitation if the article scope matches your area of expertise. Reviewing an article thoroughly and specifically is a time consuming task. In case you don’t have the time, or you are a way, you are welcomed to recommend a colleague who has more free time and make it clear that you would like to review in the future.
We expect our reviewers to assess:
  • If the manuscript presents something novel and sufficiently interesting to determine its originality and appropriateness for publication
  • If the manuscript presentation fully complies with the journal’s author guidelines
  • If the manuscript title clearly describes the article and demonstrates the significance of the research
  • If the manuscript abstract reflects the manuscript content accurately
  • If the manuscript introduction shows the importance of the research question and provide the readers with summary of current achievements in the field.
  • If the applied analysis or methodology is appropriate to the research question being asked, are the new ones and explained in detail
  • If the presented results explain clearly what was discovered in the research
  • If the author concluding claims reasonable, supported by the results, and consistent with the author’s expectations
  • If the included graphics and tables are informative, descriptive and consistent with the journal format
  • If the quality of language is appropriate and easy to follow
It should also be mentioned that the reviewers are not expected to correct the English but should instead mention this as part of the review. Also, the overall recommendations that will be taken to account by the Editor include; Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, and Reject. Finally, communicate any questions relating to the content of the paper with the journal Editor-in-Chief or editorial office.

Peer Review Process
Editor-in-Chief makes an initial appraisal of each manuscript and if the topic and content seem potentially appropriate for the journal, the manuscript is assigned to a Section Editor who is a specialist on that topic. If the papers are not desk rejected, they are typically sent out to expert referees to be thoroughly reviewed. There are three main reasons for a paper to be ‘desk rejected’;
  • Papers that are out of the journal scope will be desk rejected even if such papers are good.
  • Papers that are in IJPT scope but do not meet the quality standards, like; novelty, intellectual depth, rigorous, and accepted language, style, or grammar, are also likely to be desk rejected.
  • Papers that report human or animal studies must state the corresponding research project code of ethics to commit that the appropriate ethical standards are being considered. Otherwise, the paper will be desk rejected, even if it is good and do address the journal scope.
IJPT has a "double blind" review process and the authors and the referees are not told who wrote or reviewed the papers. The section editors need at least two authoritative reviews for making a decision as to whether to accept, reject or ask for a minor/major revision of the reviewed manuscript. The overall recommendations that will be taken to account by the Editors include;
  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. No more than one major revision is allowed and the revised manuscript must be submitted in less than 3 months. Also, minor revisions must not take more than 2 weeks. The revisions that are not submitted during the expected periods will be eliminated and are considered as new submissions.  
  
Facilities
Related topics Related topics
Print version Print version
Send to friends Send to friends


CAPTCHA
::
View: 378 Time(s)   |   Print: 55 Time(s)   |   Email: 0 Time(s)   |   0 Comment(s)
مجله داروشناسی و درمان شناسی ایران Iranian Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.25 seconds with 45 queries by YEKTAWEB 3960