Volume - 13, Issue - 1, Jan - March 2022
Volume - 13, Issue - 2, April - June 2022
Volume - 13, Issue - 3, July - September 2022

Double  - Blind Peer Review Process

All papers submitted to our journal are subjected to rigorous, editorial review followed by double-blind peer review. We send articles to the subject experts to take their scientific view on the quality of content, article structure, language and reference correctness. Every manuscript is reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper despite gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nor citizenry, nor of the author(s).

  • Any conflict of interest observed during the review process will be communicated to the author. 
  • All information about the manuscript is kept confidential. Reason for the rejection of publication of an article will be communicated to the author and editor. Authors can follow the review process and its effectiveness before start compiling the manuscript for submission. 
  • Manuscript submission and peer review processes managed within the online submission to editorjgtps@gmail.com.

Review Parameters

  • The reviewer have raised any conflict of interest when reviewing this paper any.
  • Did the peers reviewed or rejected this article before? If so, the reviewer needs to decline this peer review and let the editors know.
  • Do the title and abstract cover fundamental aspects of the work; would it brings attention to the right readers
  • Is the Introduction part easy to follow for most readers of our journal. Does it indicate the relevant papers. Does it provide a hypothesis or aim and objective of the study
  • The Methods part provide adequate details for the researcher to reproduce the analyses yes or no should be verified
  • If the reviewer skips the Methods, does the Results section give the real significance of detail to understand the essential specifications of the experiments
  • Did the authors arrange all their data
  • This paper novel and an advancement of the field, or have other people done quite comparable work
  • Does the paper raise any ethical concerns


  • We welcome the opinion of the readers, authors, reviewers, editors and their feedback on our review policy. Please send any comments or suggestion on how to improve this review policy to editorjgtps@gmail.com.

Reviewer Guidelines

We are sincerely thanks to our reviewer who gives their time to peer-review articles submitted to International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. Extremely thorough and careful peer-review is an important task of publishing high quality academic papers

Reviewer Instructions

Reviewer holds the maximum responsibility for the acceptance of manuscript in Journal of global trends in Pharmaceutical Sciences (JGTPS) .Every reviewer is requested to strictly adhere to the roles and responsibilities mentioned below.

1. Please check for assigned manuscripts at least two days once in your mail.

2. Download the assigned manuscript and review the work or the editor may also send the manuscript to the reviewers mail.

3. Check whether the work is up to the standards for publishing at Journal of Global Trends in Pharmaceutical Sciences (JGTPS

4. Reviewers should not contact the author through mobile/telephone/mail for any queries regarding the manuscript if found by mistake anywhere in the manuscript. 

5. Reviewers should not print the manuscript or use the manuscript for lecture or any other purpose which is under review process

6. Corrections/decisions on manuscript should be notified by reviewer in 30 days.

7. Please inform to editor through mail or telephone. If the reviewer is not interested to review the assigned manuscript within one week then allotted to others.


Role of the Publisher:

In cases of proven scientific misconduct, plagiarism, or fraudulent publication, the publisher, in collaboration with the editorial board, will take appropriate action to clarify the situation, publish an erratum, or retract the work in question. Publishers shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.