For reviewers

Pharmacy Practice is a peer-reviewed journal. To make this process work properly, is necessary to count with a wide pool of prestigious peer-reviewers, experts in different areas in journal’s scope. Pharmacy Practice has created a peer-reviewer selection process based on searching in PubMed for articles closely related to the manuscript to evaluate (see a description of this reviewers’ selection process). We aim ensuring the expertise of reviewer in the specific topic.

Peer-reviewers are contacted by email, and full text manuscript (including author identification) is provided after accepting the review. In no more than four weeks, reviewer should send the editor a confidential opinion on the manuscript reviewed and some comments to be sent to authors. Editor decides if manuscript is accepted or it needs some major or minor modifications. Authors should submit the new version in no more than four weeks, and the new version is reviewed by the same peer-reviewers than the original version. To know more about the reviewing process, click here.

Working as a peer-reviewer in Pharmacy Practice has not any of remuneration. See the List of Reviewers who have collaborated in Pharmacy Practice.

 

Pharmacy Practice’s editorial and peer-review process

This editorial process usually takes between three to five months. All the papers submitted to Pharmacy Practice undergo a peer-review process consisting:

  1. Preliminary review by the Editorial Board checking the formal requirements and fitness to Pharmacy Practice scope.
  2. Sending the paper to one or more peer-reviewers with expertise in the paper’s area.
  3. Waiting for reviewers’ comments which may include confidential comments to the editor (including reviewer’s opinion on paper acceptance), and reviewer’s comments to be reported to the authors.
  4. Based on reviewers’ comments, but also in Editorial Board opinion on relevance and innovation, a decision is made: accepted, accepted with minor modifications, major modifications needed, or rejection.
  5. Decision is communicated to the authors. If minor or major modifications are needed, a 4 weeks period is allowed to correct the paper and re-submit it. When decision was ‘major modifications needed’, paper should undergo a new peer-review process.
  6. After accepting a paper, it should be formatted to the typical Pharmacy Practice layout. Galley proofs are sent to the authors to check them for errors.

 

What does the Editorial Board expect from a peer-reviewer?

Pharmacy Practice encourages reviewers to submit two different groups of comments:

  • A peer-reviewer’s report addressed to the authors, containing the suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript.
  • A confidential paragraph addressed to the editorial Board providing a personal insight about the quality of the paper and the chances to be improved.

A typical peer-reviewer’s report for the authors is a two- to three-pages report with comments for the authors aiming to help them to improve the quality of the manuscript. Usually, but not always, these reviewer’s report is divided into a part with overall and major comments and a second with minor modifications.

  • Validity: specific comments about potential major methodological flaws of the study that prohibit manuscript publication. Comments about the data gathering process and the data analysis are of especial importance in this evaluation. Especial focus on statistics is advised here. A specific sub-section of limitations of the study should be always included at the end of the discussion section.
  • Originality and relevance: reviewers are invited to provide their opinions about the originality of the work and its relevance for the practice of pharmacy. The objective of the study should be clearly described at the end of the introduction section. Note that local studies may have interest for an international audience if they are properly reported with details of the environment allowing their comparability with other environments. At the end of the discussion, authors should provide their opinions about the potential implications to practice of the findings reported.
  • Results: in the results section, only objective results, and not authors opinions, should be reported. Tables and figures are relevant and provide sufficient details of the study findings. Online Appendix should be used as an alternative to excessive data or huge tables that difficult the reading.
  • Conclusions: As crucial part of the article, conclusions should only be supported by the main results of the study aiming to respond the stated objective. Exaggerated or generalist conclusions are not acceptable.
  • References: number, quality and appropriateness of the references should be carefully evaluated. Special consideration should be given about the appraisal of previously published literature about manuscript topic, with major focus on pharmacy journals.