Reviewer Guidelines

SAPS upholds the highest standards of scholarly publishing and follows a double-blind peer review process. We deeply value the time, expertise, and insight that our reviewers contribute to the journal. These guidelines are designed to help reviewers provide thorough, fair, and constructive evaluations.

Confidentiality and Integrity

  • SAPS implements a double-blind review: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process.

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use any part of the content for personal benefit or distribution.

  • If you recognize the work or suspect a conflict of interest, contact the editor immediately and recuse yourself from the review.

Scope of the Review
Reviewers are expected to provide a detailed, unbiased, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript’s:

  • Originality and novelty: Is the research innovative and does it add value to the field?

  • Scientific validity: Are the study design, methodology, data analysis, and interpretation appropriate and rigorous?

  • Significance and impact: Does the study contribute to pharmaceutical sciences or related areas?

  • Clarity and structure: Is the manuscript clearly written, logically organized, and easy to understand?

  • Ethical compliance: Are animal/human studies approved by an ethics committee? Has informed consent been mentioned, if applicable?

  • References: Are references current, credible, and properly cited? Are relevant recent studies included?

What to Include in Your Review

Please structure your feedback under the following sections:

1. General Comments

  • Summary of the manuscript in your own words

  • Your overall impression (major strengths and weaknesses)

  • Suitability for the journal

2. Detailed Evaluation

Evaluate the following aspects individually:

  • Title and Abstract: Accurate, clear, and reflective of the study?

  • Introduction: Well-written and justified background/rationale?

  • Materials and Methods: Sufficient detail and reproducibility? Ethical compliance?

  • Results: Clear presentation of data? Use of tables/figures?

  • Discussion: Appropriate interpretation? Supported by results and literature?

  • Conclusion: Clear and based on evidence?

  • Language and Writing Quality: Any grammatical or clarity issues?

  • References: Adequate and current?

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

  • You may include sensitive feedback here, such as ethical concerns, potential misconduct, or plagiarism detection.

4. Recommendation

Choose one of the following:

  • Accept as is

  • Minor revision

  • Major revision

  • Reject

Tone and Style

  • Be constructive and respectful, especially when recommending revisions or rejection.

  • Avoid language that may seem personal or dismissive.

  • Suggest improvements where possible, not just point out flaws.

Timeliness

  • Please submit your review by the due date. If you need an extension, kindly inform the editorial office in advance.

  • If you are unable to complete the review, please decline promptly so we may find an alternate reviewer.

Conflict of Interest
Do not review manuscripts where you:

  • Have a personal or professional connection to the authors

  • Work in the same institution

  • Have collaborated with the authors in the past 3 years

  • Have any financial or competitive interest in the publication

Acknowledgment
Your contribution helps maintain the quality and credibility of SAPS. Outstanding reviewers may be acknowledged annually on our website and considered for editorial board invitations.

For any questions or clarifications, please get in touch with the Editor-in-Chief.