Peer Review Policy

General Philosophy

The objective of peer review is to enhance the quality and the content of the manuscript under reviewing process. Conscientious peer review is a time-consuming process, but it is critical and significant step to ensure the quality of scientific journals and their published work. The Malaysian Journal of Pharmacy and the Malaysian Pharmacist Society are very grateful for the time and effort spent by you on creating contributing efforts to our success, thus, this journal supports reviewers to claim their reviewing efforts using Publons®.

The Malaysian Journal of Pharmacy policy adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ( Our work ensures that the peer reviewing process is honest, impartial, and timely. The decision to accept or reject any manuscript for publication is purely based on at least TWO reviewers’ recommendations according to the significance, originality and clarity of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.

Our procedures of identifying and classifying potential reviewers relies on a broad variety of outlets including editorial boards, personal information, suggestions from authors and bibliographic databases. Your assessment as a reviewer is a key role in our decision of approving or refusing a manuscript for publication.

The Malaysian Journal of Pharmacy is conducting a double-blind peer review process in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are hidden from the authors.

General Notes:

Reviews should be carried out equally and critically, however, personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Based on your expertise, if the manuscript is having weakness or missing the logic, you can criticize the science, but not the author. Criticisms should be built on a solid opinion and must be supported by logic, and not simply differences of opinion. The merit value of criticism is to allow the authors to learn through the process of reviewing so they can produce a better article.

You should clearly state if you have a conflict of interest and accordingly refuse to examine the manuscripts. This include cases where conflict of interest is arising out of a competitive, collaborative or other partnership or relationship with any of the authors, companies or entities linked to the papers. In other cases where you might doubt the conflict-of-interest presence please include this problem in your confidential comments to the editor. Such cases might but not limited to reviewing a manuscript authors that you were at a previous or current relationship, or their organization.

For double blind reviewing purposes, make sure that you avoid comments that could serve as clues to your identity. The confidentiality of the manuscript in your trust should be carried out throughout the process. You should not share secret manuscripts with your colleagues or use the material in your own work. Your analysis and recommendation should also be considered confidential. Forwarding the manuscript to a colleague that you feel is more competent than you in order to review the paper is prohibited without first seeking permission from the editor to do so.

Comments to the Editor:

Your Editor’s Comments can only be submitted to the Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. These should include any potential conflicts of interest. Comments to enhance the manuscript quality with constructive criticism should be included in the Author’s comments.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer comments to the author will be submitted to the and the Editor who is handling the manuscript and the Editor in Chief. Authors will also be notified with those comments along with any other anonymous reviewers comments directly after decision is taken by the editor.

The reviewing process for the Malaysian journal of Pharmacy should be within the following follow:

  • Start by describing the significant contributions made by the paper. What are its key strengths and drawbacks, and its publicity suitability? Please provide both general and detailed comments on these issues and stress your most important points.
  • Comments should be positive and intended to improve the text of the manuscript. You should consider yourself the mentor of the authors. Please make your comments as complete and informative as possible.
  • Express your views positive or negative clearly with supporting arguments and references as required. It should include clear comments on the work’s aim, opinions’ strengths, shortcomings, research or publication misconduct, and significance of the manuscript, its originality and its value in the field.
  • Specific remarks referring to line numbers are most helpful and encouraged while reviewing to ensure the manuscript follow, and interesting ideas without repetition
  • If you feel unqualified to deal with certain aspects of the manuscript, please provide a comment to identify these areas.
  • Comments should be submitted to through the reviewer link in a word file, with the proper previous flow, you name, title, affiliation and date within two weeks from the date you received the manuscript. To protect your privacy, the Editorial Assistant Journal will delete your details from the assets of these papers.

Important questions to contemplate while reviewing:

  1. Is the submitted manuscript within the scope of the Journal? Is the topic and information of significant interest to the scientific community of the Journal?
  2. Dose the manuscript structure accurately meet the journal’s templet including the title, abstract, key words, introduction, and conclusions?
  3. Are the employed methods and procedures appropriate, cutting-edge, and described clearly enough to reproduce the work by someone else?
  4. Are the ethical issues properly addressed? This includes cases of some cell culture studies relaying on the production of the studied cells from humans, preclinical studies including using animal tissue on the in vitro scale, and clinical work?
  5. Are appropriate statistical analyses and employed software details used sufficiently?
  6. Are the used tables or figures supporting the ideas, or repeating itself?
  7. Are the conclusions and discussion enough and clarifying the presented data?
  8. Are the cited references correct, appropriate and up to date to support the manuscript?
  9. Are citations provided when they are necessary? Are any key citations missing?
  10. Should any portions of the paper be expanded, condensed, combined, or deleted? Does the manuscript comply with the Instructions for Authors?
  11. Is this work reporting data for first time, or data with a significant degree of novelty, or not? If any, please provide details and suggestions.
  12. Is the work plagiarised from another published publication? If so, please illustrate in brief with reference(s).
  13. Is there any indication that the data have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated? If so, please illustrate in brief with reference(s).
  14. Is there any indication that the images (western blot, cell culture, …etc) have been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated? If so, please illustrate in brief with reference(s).