Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Marine Pharmacy and Biomedicine (JMPB) highly values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality, integrity, and scientific credibility of published articles. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts through a double-blind peer-review process.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a crucial role in assisting editors in making editorial decisions and helping authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Reviews should be conducted professionally, ethically, and impartially.

2. Peer Review Process

  • JMPB employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.
  • Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject area.
  • Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly.
  • Provide constructive comments that help authors improve their work.
  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript information.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Notify the editor if they are unable to complete the review within the requested deadline.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns.

4. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, distribute, or use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline review invitations if they have conflicts of interest arising from:

  • Collaborative relationships with the authors.
  • Institutional affiliations that may influence objectivity.
  • Financial, professional, or personal interests related to the manuscript.
  • Any circumstance that could reasonably affect impartial judgment.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

A. Originality and Novelty

  • Does the manuscript provide new scientific knowledge?
  • Does the study offer significant contributions to marine pharmacy, marine biomedicine, or related fields?

B. Scientific Quality

  • Are the objectives clearly stated?
  • Is the study design appropriate?
  • Are the methods scientifically sound and reproducible?
  • Are statistical analyses appropriate and adequately described?

C. Results and Interpretation

  • Are the results clearly presented?
  • Do the data support the conclusions?
  • Are interpretations reasonable and supported by evidence?

D. Literature and References

  • Are relevant and recent references cited?
  • Is the literature review adequate and up to date?
  • Are references properly cited according to journal guidelines?

E. Organization and Presentation

  • Is the manuscript well organized and easy to understand?
  • Is the language clear and scientifically appropriate?
  • Are tables and figures necessary, informative, and properly presented?

F. Ethical Compliance

  • Does the manuscript comply with ethical standards?
  • Is ethical approval reported when required?
  • Are there indications of plagiarism, data manipulation, or research misconduct?

7. Reviewer Recommendations

At the end of the review process, reviewers should recommend one of the following decisions:

  • Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication without revision.
  • Minor Revision – The manuscript requires small improvements before publication.
  • Major Revision – Significant revisions are required before reconsideration.
  • Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewers should provide clear justification for their recommendations and offer specific suggestions whenever possible.

8. Constructive Review Practices

Review comments should:

  • Be respectful and professional.
  • Focus on scientific content rather than personal criticism.
  • Provide detailed and actionable suggestions.
  • Identify strengths as well as areas for improvement.
  • Avoid offensive, discriminatory, or inappropriate language.

9. Ethical Concerns and Misconduct

Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Image manipulation.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Ethical issues involving human or animal subjects.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the period specified by the editorial office. If additional time is required, reviewers should inform the editor as soon as possible.

11. Acknowledgment of Reviewer Contributions

JMPB greatly appreciates the valuable contributions of reviewers in ensuring the publication of high-quality scientific research. Reviewer activities may be recognized through journal acknowledgment programs while maintaining reviewer confidentiality.

12. Contact Information

For questions regarding the review process, reviewers may contact the Editorial Office through the journal website or the official journal email address.