Peer-review policy

Peer-review policy

Peer review in all its structure plays an essential role in ensuring the quality of scientific output. Peer review is a process of evaluating the scientific work by other scholars in the same field. The procedure depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically.

Peer Review Policy Statement

  1. Commitment to Rigorous Peer Review

Tropical Journal of Phytochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences (TJPPS) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of scholarly quality, integrity, and ethical publishing. All original research articles, review articles, and substantive contributions submitted to the journal undergo rigorous external peer review to ensure originality, methodological validity, and significant contribution to the field. Our peer review process adheres to international standards, including those outlined by COPE and the transparency requirements for inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection.

We value the critical contributions of our peer reviewers and ensure that the review process is conducted ethically, confidentially, and without bias. Non-peer-reviewed content (e.g., editorials, commentaries) is clearly identified and subject to editorial oversight.

  1. Peer Review Model

The journal employs a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer review model, where both author and reviewer identities are concealed to minimize bias and ensure the highest quality of the journal. All articles except Editorials are sent out for peer review. At the editor’s discretion, alternative models may be applied for specific submissions:

  • Single-anonymized (single-blind) review: Reviewer identities are confidential, but author identities are known to reviewers (used in exceptional cases).
  • Open peer review (pilot phase): Reviewer identities and reports may be published alongside the article, with consent from authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.
  • Transparent peer review (optional): Peer review reports and editorial decision letters are published with the article, subject to mutual agreement.

All peer review processes are documented and auditable to meet Web of Science standards.

  1. Peer Review Process

The peer review process is designed to be fair, timely, and thorough. The workflow includes:

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Assistant Editor, or Section Editor assesses submissions for scope, quality, ethical compliance, and completeness. Unsuitable submissions are desk-rejected with feedback. All articles are handled by an editorial board member without potential conflicts of interest with the authors.
  2. Reviewer Selection: A minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise are invited, identified via editorial networks, Web of Science Researcher Profiles, or other databases. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest (e.g., financial, personal, collaborative ties, co-authorship, or institutional affiliation) and recuse themselves if necessary.
  3. Review Evaluation: Reviewers provide structured feedback through our Editorial Management System, assessing originality, methodology, clarity, and impact. Recommendations include accept, minor/major revisions, or reject. Reviews must be objective and constructive. Reviewers are asked to complete their review within two weeks, with possible extensions.
  4. Editorial Decision: The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports and issues a decision, supported by clear communication to authors. The number of revisions depends on the changes needed to ensure quality. Revised manuscripts may undergo further review.
  5. Final Production: Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and proofreading, with authors verifying changes. Manuscripts appear in the "Articles in Press" section and are published online with a DOI, making them immediately citable.

Manuscripts are treated as confidential throughout the process, and reviewers are prohibited from sharing or using submission content.

  1. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected for their expertise and agree to:

  • Provide unbiased, evidence-based, and constructive feedback.
  • Declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeline (typically 2 weeks).
  • Maintain confidentiality and avoid using manuscript content for personal purposes.

Reviewers receive guidance and access to training resources to ensure high-quality reviews.

  1. Appeals and Ethical Oversight

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the Editor-in-Chief with a substantiated rationale. Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor. Complaints about the review process are handled per COPE guidelines, with annual reporting for transparency. Ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are investigated thoroughly, following our Ethical Guidelines.

  1. Policy Updates

This policy is reviewed annually to ensure alignment with COPE, Clarivate, and evolving scholarly standards. The current version is effective as of September 26, 2025. For inquiries, contact the editorial office at editor.tjpps@gmail.com;

 

By submitting to or reviewing for Tropical Journal of Natural Product Research, authors and reviewers agree to adhere to this policy.

 

All articles shall be handled by an Editorial board member who does not have any potential conflict of interest with any of the manuscript’s authors. All Manuscripts will undergo a double-blind peer-review process, where the authors and reviewers do not know each other’s identity to ensure the highest quality of the journal.

Article handling editor will select the potential reviewers for each article and must (i) not have co-authored publications with the author and (ii) not be affiliated with the same institution as the author(s). All articles except Editorials will be sent out for peer review process and at least two reviewer comments per manuscript will be collected. Reviewers will be asked to complete their review within two weeks; however, they are allowed to extend the review period of time in order to complete and submit their report.

Peer reviewers can make one of the following recommendations for the editors to consider:

  1. Accept manuscript without any change
  2. Accept after minor revision (i.e., article can be accepted if the author makes the requested minor revisions)
  3. Accept after minor revision (i.e., article can be accepted after major revisions have been made – the manuscript may be sent out for another peer review round)
  4. Reject manuscript (i.e., the manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

  1. Accept
  2. Revision
  3. Reject

Revision

Formal revision may be required if the language or style is sub-standard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of two weeks for minor/major revisions, with possible extensions of up to 4 weeks. Number of revisions depends upon the need for number of changes/edits needed in the article as per the instructions from the editor/reviewers to ensure quality of the article before getting them published.

Publication

If the manuscript is accepted, the author will be sent a galley proof in order for them to make any final corrections. Once this is done the manuscript will appear in the Articles in Press section of the journal’s website. All accepted peer reviewed manuscripts will be published online and are citable by the digital object identifier (DOI) assigned at the time of online publication.