• Serving as a peer reviewer
• Pharmacy Practice’s editorial and peer-review process
• What does the Editorial Board expect from a peer-reviewer?


Serving as a peer reviewer

Pharmacy Practice is a peer-reviewed journal. For this process work properly, we rely on a wide pool of prestigious peer reviewers, who are expert in the various areas of 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 to ensure the expertise of a reviewer in a specific topic.

Peer reviewers are contacted by email, and full-text manuscript (including author identification) is provided after they accept the review. In no more than four weeks, a reviewer should send the editor a confidential opinion on the manuscript and some comments to be sent to authors. The editor decides if a manuscript is accepted or needs major or minor modifications. Author(s) should submit the new version in no more than four weeks, and the new version is reviewed by the same peer-reviewers as the original version.

Serving as a peer reviewer for Pharmacy Practice does not enatail any remuneration. You can view the List of reviewers who have collaborated with Pharmacy Practice.


Pharmacy Practice’s editorial and peer-review process

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

  1. Preliminary review by the editorial board to chck for the formal requirements and fit 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 could include confidential comments to the editor, including reviewer opinion on paper acceptance, and reviewer comments to be reported to the author(s).
  4. Based on reviewers' comments, but also on editorial board opinion on relevance and innovation, a decision is made: accepted, accepted with minor modifications, major modifications needed or rejection.
  5. The decision is communicated to the authors. If minor or major modifications are needed, a four-week period is allowed to correct the paper and re-submit it. When the decision is ‘major modifications needed’, the 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 personal insight about the quality of the paper and the chances for it to be improved.

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

  • 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 particular importance in this evaluation. Focus on statistics is advised here. A specific subsection of limitations of the study should always be 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, not authors opinions, should be reported. Tables and figures are relevant and provide sufficient details of the study findings. An online appendix should be used as an alternative to excessive data or huge tables that complicate the reading.
  • Conclusions: As a 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 the manuscript topic, with particular focus on pharmacy journals.