Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewers Guidelines

Tropical Journal of Phytochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences (TJPSS) is highly committed to publishing high quality research findings within the shortest possible time. To achieve this objective, the contributions of reviewers in the peer-review process is commendable.

The relevance of Reviewers to academic excellence cannot be overemphasized. If you have accepted an invitation to review, we thank you in advance for agreeing to review a manuscript. To this end, some level of responsibility is undertaken by the Reviewers. Hence, the following Guidelines listed below will be very useful to the Reviewers.

TJPPS Editorial management will assign an article to Reviewer based on their research field.

Exploitation of manuscript under review:

Citing, use of manuscript under review, by the reviewer is prohibited. Reviewers should not cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published, and to refrain from using the information it contains for the advancement of their own research work.

A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial attitude towards the manuscript under review. Reviewers position should be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting excellent, effective and accurate scientific communication.

Manuscript should be returned to the editor immediately if the reviewer is unable to assess the article impartially.

The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.

Timely completion of review:

Reviewer should complete the review of articles timeously and expeditiously, within two weeks. Failure to complete the review within the specified time, the editor should be informed.

Reviewers are not allowed to discuss with the authors of the manuscript under review. The Editor-in-Chief or the Editor should be contacted first.

Acceptability of papers

Reviewers are kindly advised not make any specific statement about acceptability of a paper in his comments for transmission to the author, but should advise the editor on sheet provided.

Your criticism, arguments, and suggestions concerning that paper will be most useful to the editor if they are carefully documented.

Reviewer's recommendations to the editor is highly respected, but since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the editor to honour his or her every recommendation.

Reviewers  are not requested to correct mistake/s in grammar, but any help in this regard will be appreciated.

Template for Technical Review

  • Scientific reliability of the article
  • The objectives of the article should be met
  • Is the title suggestive of the article’s content?
  • Justification of research should be clearly stated
  • Is the article appropriately organized and are the headings indicative of content?
  • Use of established and standard methods in executing the research work
  • Is the Research question(s) clearly and objectively addressed?
  • Are the References up to date, satisfactory and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
  • Does the article conform to International Ethical guidelines?
  • Is there clarity of writing?
  • Is the writing style satisfactory?
  • Relevance of the figures and table, clarity of legends and titles.

Language of Composition

The manuscript should be written in English in a clear, direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies. All pages should be numbered sequentially, facilitating the reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Authors should seek professional assistance for correction of grammatical, scientific and typographical errors before submission of the revised version of the article for publication. Professional editing services may also be sought from Science and English editing professionals.

Experiments involving Humans and Animals

The research must meet the highest applicable international standards of the ethics of experimentation and research integrity. The guidelines for the use of animals and humans is available on the journal website.

If you accept the invitation to review:

  • Download all manuscript materials.
  • Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
  • Bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
  • Advise the editor of your recommendation for acceptance, revise or rejection by providing specific comments and suggestions.

If you decline the invitation to review:

  • If you decline to review, please indicate the reason
  • If possible suggest any of your colleagues or alternative reviewers

Obligations of Reviewers

Confidentiality  of information

The reviewer should maintain the  confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. The  reviewer should  not retain or copy the  manuscript in any form or format.

The Reviewer should not  use any information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript  under consideration to advance their research unless the information has been  made publicly available through another source, such as an abstract or a  presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article.

Objectivity and equity   

The reviewer should not communicate with authors about a manuscript under  consideration. Likewise, authors should not initiate such a communication with  a reviewer but instead should communicate only with the editor. If an author  persists in attempting to communicate with a reviewer, that reviewer should  notify the editor. The Editorial Board of TJPPS will inturn initiate the necessary and legitimate mechanisms for addressing it.

Acknowledgement of Source  and Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest    

The reviewer should be aware of any potential  conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other  relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to  these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript. Such communication between the editor and the reviewer should be done by email.

Contribution to Editorial  Decision making process    

The reviewer should contribute to the  decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the  published manuscript by subjecting the paper to objective and efficient review process.

The reviewer receives an  invitation to review a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt  attention to it, the reviewer should decline the invitation in a timely manner.  The reviewer should submit his/her evaluation of the manuscript in a timely  manner.

The reviewer should  consider the quality and significance of the experimental and theoretical work,  the completeness of the description of methods and materials, the logical basis  of the interpretation of the results, and the exposition with due regard to the  maintenance of high standards of communication. Reviews should include  constructive suggestions for revision and corrections, including, if appropriate, indication of  where statements may require additional reference to the published literature.

The reviewers should  comment tactfully. Harsh language and personal attacks on the authors are  unacceptable; they also may call into question the validity of the reviewer's  comments.

An individual who is asked  to review a manuscript and who feels inadequately qualified to judge that manuscript should return the manuscript promptly without review and advise the  editor of  the circumstances.