Peer Review Process

The peer review process at Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy is a critical component of academic and scientific publishing, ensuring the quality, credibility, and integrity of research before it is made available to the public. It involves experts in the field (the "peers") evaluating the work of their colleagues (the authors) to assess the study's validity, reliability, and relevance. Here is a detailed breakdown of the peer review process:

1. Submission of Manuscript

  • Initial Submission: The process begins when an author submits a manuscript (a research paper, article, or study) to an academic journal or conference at https://www.psnnjp.org/index.php/home/about/submissions. This manuscript includes the study’s hypotheses, methodology, results, and conclusions.

  • Pre-Review Checks: The journal’s editorial staff conducts an initial check to ensure that the manuscript fits the journal’s scope, is free of plagiarism, and adheres to the submission guidelines (e.g., formatting, referencing style). Then it is assigned to a Section Editor with adequate experience in the area the manuscript is focused on, who will then forward work to a Reviewer. 

2. Selection of Reviewers

  • Reviewer Selection: Once the manuscript passes the initial checks, the editor selects independent experts (reviewers) in the field of study. These reviewers are typically researchers with significant expertise and a track record of research related to the topic of the manuscript.

  • Types of Reviewers: Reviewers may be identified through the journal’s network, or sometimes authors may suggest potential reviewers. Journals may also use a reviewer database.

  • Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers are typically required to maintain confidentiality and disclose any conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships with the authors.

3. Peer Review Process

  • Review Process: The manuscript is sent to two or more reviewers who evaluate it. This evaluation involves several key aspects:

    • Originality: Is the research new and does it contribute to the field?

    • Clarity: Is the writing clear, well-structured, and logical?

    • Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate, robust, and replicable?

    • Results and Interpretation: Are the results valid, and do the authors provide a sound interpretation?

    • References and Citations: Are relevant previous studies cited appropriately?

    • Ethical Considerations: Are ethical standards followed, especially in human or animal studies?

  • Type of Reviews: Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy upholds a double-blind review where Both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous to each other.

4. Reviewer Feedback

  • Constructive Feedback: After reviewing the manuscript, the reviewers provide feedback that can range from minor suggestions to major revisions. They may point out flaws, suggest additional experiments or analyses, or raise concerns about the study’s conclusions.

  • Recommendations: Based on their review, the reviewers recommend one of the following:

    • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes or only minor revisions.

    • Minor Revisions: The manuscript needs minor adjustments (e.g., clarifications or slight changes in data analysis).

    • Major Revisions: The manuscript requires significant changes, including reanalysis of data or further experimentation.

    • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication (usually because of major flaws in the research or methodology).

5. Editor’s Decision

  • Final Decision: The editor considers the reviewers' comments and decides the manuscript's fate. They may:

    • Accept it as is.

    • Ask for revisions (minor or major).

    • Reject the manuscript outright.

  • Revisions: If revisions are requested, the authors typically have a set amount of time (e.g., a few weeks to months) to make changes based on the reviewers’ feedback.

  • Communication with Authors: The editor communicates the decision to the authors, along with the reviewers' comments. The authors may be asked to resubmit the revised manuscript with a detailed response to reviewers' suggestions and criticisms.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

  • Revised Manuscript: Authors revise the manuscript based on the feedback and resubmit it to the journal. In their response letter, they usually outline how they addressed the reviewers' concerns.

  • Second Round of Reviews: The revised manuscript may go through a second round of peer review, where the reviewers assess whether the authors addressed their comments satisfactorily.

  • Final Decision: The editor makes the final decision after considering the reviewers' comments on the revised manuscript. This may result in an acceptance, further revisions, or a rejection.

7. Publication

  • Acceptance: Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes a final check for formatting, typesetting, and proofreading. It is then scheduled for publication in the journal, either in print or online.

  • Post-Publication Peer Review: After publication, the paper may undergo further scrutiny. This can involve post-publication reviews, comments, or critiques in the wider scientific community, and may lead to corrections or retractions if errors are discovered.

8. Ethical and Transparency Issues

  • Ethical Oversight: Ethical concerns are a significant part of the peer review process, especially in fields involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data. Nigerian Journal of Pharmacy often require ethics committee approval for such studies.

  • Transparency and Integrity: Ethical guidelines stress the importance of transparency and integrity in all stages of the peer review process. The Journal may use software to check for plagiarism and ensure that research is original.

9. Post-Publication and Impact

  • Citations and Influence: Once published, the article may be cited by other researchers, contributing to the scientific discourse and impacting the field. Its quality and credibility are often partly shaped by the thoroughness of the peer review process.

  • Corrections and Retractions: Occasionally, errors may be found post-publication that were not caught during the peer review process. Journals may issue corrections or even retract papers if serious flaws are identified.

Challenges and Criticisms of Peer Review

Despite its importance, the peer review process is not without challenges:

  • Bias: Reviewers may bring personal biases that influence their assessment of the manuscript, such as favoring research that aligns with their own work or overlooking flaws due to friendships.

  • Reviewer Burden: Many qualified experts are overburdened with reviewing responsibilities, which may lead to delayed or superficial reviews.

  • Lack of Transparency: In some cases, peer review lacks full transparency, which can lead to questions about the fairness and rigor of the process.