Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology

Cover image for Vol. 69 Issue 9

Edited By: D Jones, Queen's University of Belfast, UK

Impact Factor: 2.405

ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2016: 130/256 (Pharmacology & Pharmacy)

Online ISSN: 2042-7158

For Referees

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are requested to produce a report on the paper (which will be sent in an anonymised form to the authors) and also make a recommendation regarding acceptance. All papers are sent to two reviewers.


  • Accept as received
  • Minor revision: recommended when the paper reports good research but there are a few minor issues that require expansion or clarification.
  • Major revision: recommended either when the methods and/or results need clarification to confirm that the study was well executed, or when there are multiple small comments to be addressed.
  • Rejection: used for a study that is fundamentally flawed, extremely small, adds no new knowledge and/or is likely to be of little interest to the JPP readership.
  • Resubmission as short communication: small studies reporting pilot data or novel ideas, or studies from developing countries that are not original but indicate good work, may be suitable for resubmission as short communications.

Report length

The length of the report is a matter for the reviewer to decide. However, it is JPP policy to give authors as much feedback as possible, even where publication is not being recommended. The average length of a reviewer’s report is 1 A4 page, but may be longer if major revisions are recommended.

Report structure

Reviewers are requested to give a general assessment of the paper, with a brief summary of their recommendation about publication, and identify major points (either positive or negative) and/or strengths and weaknesses. This should be followed by detailed constructive comments under specific headings of the paper. Authors find it helpful when reviewers suggest specific ways in which the paper should be revised.

Points to consider

  • Reviewers sometimes identify major flaws in the study design and this may be the reason why a paper is rejected. Detailed comments can be very helpful to the authors in ensuring that future studies do not repeat the same errors.
  • Comments on the authors’ interpretation of data and of the implications for practice and/or policy are also helpful. Occasionally, while a study design cannot support the authors’ conclusions, it may be that some important or valuable messages can still be derived from the data. Reviewers sometimes suggest that a paper might be rewritten in these circumstances.
  • Reviewers are asked to comment on whether the paper is suitable for an international audience and, if not, what changes might be needed.
  • Maximum manuscript lengths are 4000 words for an original research paper, 6000 words for a mini-review article and 2000 words for a short communication, excluding references. It is expected that papers do not exceed these recommendations, although exceptions are made from time to time. Reviewers are invited to comment on manuscript length where appropriate.


Many of our papers come from authors for whom English is a second language and reviewers should try not to let language be a barrier to their assessment of the paper. Reviewers are not expected to correct the spelling and grammar of the manuscript; if accepted, the paper will be professionally copyedited.

Consulting colleagues

Reviewers may ask a junior colleague for their opinion on the article as part of academic development. The Editorial Office should always be advised of this when the report is returned. Reviewers are encouraged to suggest colleagues that may be invited to review future submissions.


JPP aims to reply to authors within 12 weeks of submission. Reviewer extensions can normally be granted but it is appreciated if requests are sent to the Editorial Office as early as possible.