Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process & Policy

Overview
Peer review is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the International Journal of Green Pharmacy (IJGP). All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review process following the procedure outlined below.

 

Initial Manuscript Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief first evaluates all submitted manuscripts for technical format, scope, and adherence to author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria or exhibit high plagiarism are rejected at this stage. Those that pass initial screening are advanced to external peer review. No manuscript is accepted without undergoing full external peer review.

 

Type of Peer Review
IJGP strictly employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process. In this system, both the reviewer and the author remain completely anonymous to each other throughout the process to ensure unbiased evaluation. Each paper is sent to at least two independent subject experts.

 

Reviewer Selection & Reports
Reviewers are selected based on their specific academic expertise matching the submission. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept Submission (Without changes)
  • Revision Required (Minor or Major changes)
  • Resubmit for Review (Requires extensive rework and another round of review)
  • Resubmit Elsewhere
  • Decline Submission (Reject)

Final Decision
Reviewers advise the Editorial Board, but the Editor-in-Chief retains the sole authority for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The final decision, along with reviewers' comments, is communicated transparently to the authors.

 

Publication Workflow of IJGP

The publication workflow of IJGP follows a structured process to ensure academic integrity:

  1. Submission Acknowledgement: Upon successful submission, an automated acknowledgement email with a unique manuscript ID is sent to the corresponding author.
  2. Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are strictly screened using professional plagiarism check software. Articles with unacceptable similarity index levels are summarily rejected.
  3. Editor Screening: The internal editorial desk reviews the manuscript for basic formatting and thematic relevance.
  4. Double-Blind Review: The manuscript is assigned to two external peer reviewers for critical evaluation.
  5. Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor-in-Chief communicates the decision (Accept, Revise, or Reject) to the author.
  6. Processing and Acceptance: If the paper requires revisions, authors must submit a modified version. Once verified and officially accepted, a formal acceptance notification is issued.
  7. Production & Publication: Upon completion of post-acceptance documentation (such as the copyright form) and verification of applicable Article Processing Charges (APCs), the paper goes into typesetting and is published online in the upcoming issue.

 

Step-by-Step Peer Review Workflow

Our review workflow is structured into the following defined stages:

1. Initial Editorial Desk Review (1–2 Weeks)

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief screens the manuscript for basic suitability.

The paper is checked for scope alignment, technical formatting, and plagiarism (similarity limit must be below 15%).

Manuscripts that fail this stage are rejected immediately without being sent for peer review.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts that pass the desk review are assigned to a minimum of two independent, external experts in the specific field of research.
  • To maintain the double-blind structure, the Editorial Office removes all author information and metadata from the manuscript file before sending it to the reviewers.

3. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript critically based on:

  • Originality and novelty of the research.
  • Methodological rigor and scientific soundness.
  • Ethical compliance (animal/human ethical approvals).
  • Clarity of writing, data presentation, and depth of discussion.
  • Relevance to the pharmaceutical and green pharmacy domains.

4. Review Decisions

Based on the peer reviewers' evaluations, the journal takes one of the following actions:

  • Accept As Is: The manuscript is ready for publication without changes.
  • Minor Revision: The authors must make small corrections or clarify specific points.
  • Major Revision: The authors must conduct major modifications, re-analyze data, or significantly rewrite portions of the text. (This requires a second round of review).
  • Reject: The manuscript contains fatal flaws or does not meet the journal's scientific benchmarks.

5. Final Decision

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board, taking into deep consideration the recommendations provided by the peer reviewers.