INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PHARMACY (IJCP)
Policy for Selection, Appointment and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers
1. Purpose
The International Journal of Community Pharmacy (IJCP) is committed to maintaining high standards
of scientific quality, academic integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing. Peer review is an
essential component of the editorial process and assists the Editorial Board in assessing the originality,
scientific validity, methodological quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall contribution of
manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
This policy establishes the criteria and procedures for the selection, appointment, evaluation, and
responsibilities of peer reviewers of IJCP.

2. Peer Review System
IJCP shall normally follow a double-anonymized peer-review system, in which the identities of authors
and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process.
Every research or review manuscript considered suitable after preliminary editorial screening should
normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.
The Editor-in-Chief shall make the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of a
manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not by themselves determine the editorial
decision. 

3. Eligibility Criteria for Reviewers
A reviewer should preferably fulfil the following criteria:
Possess a postgraduate qualification such as M.Pharm., Pharm.D., M.D., Ph.D., or equivalent
qualification in pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, medicine, public health, community pharmacy (B.
Pharm.), clinical pharmacy, pharmacology, Pharmaceutical Engineering, Bioengineering, pharmacy
practice, healthcare, or a related discipline.
Have demonstrated expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript.
Preferably have at least ten peer-reviewed publications in recognized scholarly journals in the relevant
or related field.
Normally have a minimum of three years of academic, research, clinical, professional, regulatory, or
industry experience / community pharmacist after obtaining the relevant postgraduate qualification.
Possess familiarity with research methodology, scientific writing, publication ethics, and critical
evaluation of scientific literature.
Have an identifiable professional affiliation and verifiable institutional or professional contact details.
Preferably have an ORCID iD and/or an established scholarly profile such as Scopus, Web of Science,
PubMed, Google Scholar, or an institutional research profile.
Demonstrate willingness and ability to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely
reviews.
Exceptional early-career researchers with demonstrated expertise and publication experience may be
appointed as reviewers at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.

4. Selection of Reviewers
Reviewers shall be selected primarily on the basis of:
Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript;
Recent publications in the relevant research area;
Research, clinical, academic, professional, or methodological expertise;
Previous quality and timeliness of reviews;
Absence of significant conflicts of interest;
Professional and ethical standing; and

Ability to provide an independent and unbiased assessment.
Where appropriate, manuscripts involving complex statistical analyses may additionally be referred to
a biostatistician or methodological reviewer.
The Journal should endeavour to maintain diversity among reviewers with respect to geographical
region, institution, professional background, career stage, and area of expertise.

5. Sources for Identification of Reviewers
Potential reviewers may be identified from:
The IJCP reviewer database;
Authors of relevant recently published articles;
References cited in the submitted manuscript;
Editorial Board recommendations;
Academic and professional databases;
ORCID and other verified scholarly profiles;
Previous high-performing IJCP reviewers; and
Recommendations from subject experts.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers; however, the Editorial Office is under no obligation to
appoint the suggested individuals.
The Journal shall independently verify the identity, affiliation, expertise, and contact information of
reviewers whenever necessary. 

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
A. Scientific Assessment
Evaluate:
Originality and significance of the work;
Relevance to community pharmacy and the scope of IJCP;
Adequacy of the study design and methodology;
Appropriateness of sampling and statistical analysis;
Accuracy and clarity of results;
Whether conclusions are supported by the results;
Quality of discussion and interpretation;
Adequacy and relevance of references;
Quality and usefulness of tables and figures;
Clinical, community, educational, policy, or public-health relevance, where applicable.
B. Ethical Assessment
Reviewers should identify or raise concerns regarding possible:
Plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
Duplicate or redundant publication;
Data fabrication or falsification;
Image manipulation;
Inappropriate authorship;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
Ethical problems involving human participants or animals;
Absence of appropriate ethics committee approval where required;
Problems relating to informed consent;
Inappropriate citation practices; or
Other forms of research or publication misconduct.
Suspected misconduct should be reported confidentially to the Editor and should not be communicated
directly to the authors as an accusation. 

C. Constructive Review
Reviewer comments should be:
Objective;
Evidence-based;
Specific;
Constructive;
Respectful;
Professionally worded; and
Intended to improve the scientific quality and clarity of the manuscript.
Personal criticism, insulting remarks, discriminatory comments, or unsupported allegations against
authors shall not be permitted.

7. Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for peer review shall be treated as strictly confidential documents.
Reviewers shall not:
Share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;
Discuss unpublished findings with others;
Copy or distribute manuscript material;
Contact authors directly concerning the manuscript;
Use unpublished information, ideas, methods, or data for personal or professional advantage; or
Retain manuscript files beyond what is permitted by Journal policy.
If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague or trainee in the review for educational or specialist
purposes, prior permission from the Editor must be obtained, and the contributor should be
appropriately identified to the Journal.

8. Conflict of Interest
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived
conflict of interest.
Conflicts may be:
Financial;
Institutional;
Professional;
Academic;
Personal;
Intellectual; or
Related to research competition or collaboration.
Where a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.
The Editor shall determine whether a disclosed relationship prevents an individual from acting as an
independent reviewer.

9. Review Timeline
Reviewers should preferably:
Respond to an invitation to review within 3–4 days; and
Submit the completed review within 10–15 days of accepting the invitation.
If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the stipulated period, the Editorial Office should
be informed promptly.
Repeated failure to submit reviews within the agreed time without reasonable justification may result
in temporary or permanent removal from the IJCP reviewer database

10. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may recommend:
A. Accept without revision
B. Minor revision
C. Major revision
D. Reject
The recommendation should be supported by clear scientific reasons.
Reviewers should distinguish between:
Major comments — issues affecting scientific validity, methodology, interpretation, ethics, or
conclusions.
Minor comments — issues concerning presentation, terminology, references, language, formatting,
tables, or figures.
The final editorial decision remains solely with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editor.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
Because submitted manuscripts contain confidential and potentially unpublished information,
reviewers should not upload manuscripts or substantial manuscript content to public or unauthorized
generative AI platforms.
Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must comply with IJCP's confidentiality, data-protection,
copyright, and publication-ethics requirements.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and appropriateness of their
review reports. AI-generated output shall not substitute for independent expert scientific judgment.

12. Reviewer Performance Evaluation
The Editorial Office may periodically evaluate reviewers according to:
Scientific quality of reviews;
Depth and usefulness of comments;
Constructiveness;
Objectivity;
Timeliness;
Ethical conduct;
Responsiveness;
Consistency between comments and recommendation; and
Compliance with Journal policies.
Reviewers may be classified internally as Outstanding, Good, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory based on
their performance.
Reviewers providing consistently high-quality reviews may be considered for inclusion in the Journal's
Reviewer Panel or Editorial Board.

13. Reviewer Recognition
IJCP recognizes peer reviewing as an important scholarly contribution.
Subject to Journal policy, reviewers may receive:
Annual certificates of appreciation;
Electronic reviewer certificates;
Letters acknowledging significant reviewing contributions;
Recognition in an annual list of reviewers, subject to reviewer consent; and
Consideration for the Journal's Outstanding Reviewer recognition.
Partial waving of publication / processing charges
No recognition mechanism shall compromise reviewer confidentiality. 

14. Editorial Independence
Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but the Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility and
authority for editorial decisions.
Acceptance or rejection shall be based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical
compliance, relevance to IJCP's readership, and contribution to community pharmacy and related
healthcare disciplines.
Editorial decisions shall not be influenced by nationality, institutional affiliation, personal
relationships, commercial interests, or other irrelevant considerations.

15. Ethical Framework
IJCP's peer-review practices should be guided by internationally accepted principles of publication
ethics, particularly those established by:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE);
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); and
Other internationally recognized standards of biomedical and scholarly publishing.
The Journal may periodically revise this policy to reflect developments in peer-review practices,
research integrity, artificial intelligence, data protection, and publication ethics.
Approved by: Editorial Board, International Journal of Community Pharmacy (IJCP)
Effective from: 01.10.2026
Version: 1.0
Review of Policy: Every three years or earlier when required