Peer Review Process

Peer review is a critical process used to evaluate the quality of a manuscript before publication. Independent experts in the relevant field review submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance, helping Editors decide whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication. You can learn more about the peer-review process here.

The Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) Journal follows a double-blind peer-review system. In this process, the reviewers are unaware of the authors' names or affiliations, and the feedback provided to authors is entirely anonymous.

The advantage of double-blind peer review is that it ensures the manuscript is evaluated solely on its content, eliminating unconscious bias based on the authors' identity.

Submitted manuscripts are typically reviewed by two or more experts, who assess the scientific soundness, originality, and clarity of the work, ensuring it does not duplicate previously published research. The Editors base their final decision on these reviews, and when necessary, consult with members of the Editorial Board.

Purpose and Scope of Peer Review

Peer review is an essential component of the publication process of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) and is intended to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, originality, and credibility of published research. The peer-review process provides an independent and critical assessment of submitted manuscripts and assists the editorial team in making informed decisions regarding publication. CPR aims to maintain a rigorous, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process in which manuscripts are evaluated by appropriately qualified experts with relevant subject knowledge. Reviewers are expected to assess the scientific merit, methodological soundness, originality, relevance, and overall contribution of each manuscript while providing constructive and evidence-based recommendations.

All manuscripts submitted to CPR are evaluated in accordance with the journal’s aims and scope. The review process considers whether the manuscript addresses a relevant pharmaceutical or related scientific topic, presents scientifically sound and adequately supported findings, and contributes meaningful knowledge to the field. Peer review also serves to identify methodological limitations, deficiencies in data interpretation, ethical concerns, and other issues that may affect the reliability or suitability of the manuscript for publication.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editorial Board member after considering the reviewers’ evaluations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, and the journal’s editorial standards.

Peer Review Model and Editorial Process

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) follows a double-anonymized peer-review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the peer-review process. This approach is intended to promote objective, impartial, and independent assessment of submitted manuscripts and to minimize potential bias in editorial evaluation.

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to CPR undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review. The Editorial Office assesses the manuscript for basic compliance with the journal’s submission requirements, scope, ethical standards, originality, completeness, and overall suitability for further consideration. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be declined at this stage without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are assigned to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and experience relevant to the subject of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise, research background, publication record, and absence of relevant conflicts of interest. The Editorial Office may consider appropriate reviewer suggestions from authors; however, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the journal.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript considered for external peer review will normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, particularly in cases involving interdisciplinary research, conflicting recommendations, or specialized methodological or statistical issues.

Revision and Re-Review

Based on the reviewers’ comments and the editorial assessment, authors may be requested to submit a revised version of the manuscript. Authors are expected to address the reviewers’ comments carefully and provide a clear point-by-point response indicating how each concern has been addressed. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, assigned to new reviewers for further evaluation. More than one round of revision may be undertaken when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the scientific and editorial standards of CPR.

Final Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board, taking into consideration the reviewers’ recommendations, the scientific quality of the manuscript, the authors’ responses to reviewer comments, and the overall suitability of the manuscript for CPR. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine the final editorial decision. The possible editorial outcomes include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Reviewer Selection and Eligibility

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) selects reviewers who possess appropriate academic or professional expertise relevant to the subject matter of the manuscript. Reviewer selection is based on the reviewer’s demonstrated knowledge, research experience, publication record, and ability to provide an objective and scientifically rigorous assessment. Reviewers should have relevant subject expertise sufficient to evaluate the scientific content, methodology, interpretation, and significance of the submitted manuscript. Preference is given to reviewers with a doctoral degree or equivalent qualification and established professional expertise in the relevant pharmaceutical, biomedical, or related scientific field. Reviewers should have an appropriate research and publication record demonstrating active engagement with the subject area of the manuscript. Their academic or professional background may be assessed using recognized scholarly profiles, institutional information, publication records, or other verifiable sources.

Reviewers should have a current and verifiable academic, research, clinical, industrial, or other recognized professional affiliation relevant to their area of expertise. The affiliation should enable the Editorial Office to establish the reviewer’s professional identity and suitability for peer review. Reviewers must be sufficiently independent of the authors and the research being evaluated to provide an impartial assessment. Individuals with personal, professional, financial, academic, or other relationships that could reasonably influence their judgment should not accept the review assignment and should disclose any potential conflict to the Editorial Office.

Reviewers should not normally be selected if they have recently co-authored publications, collaborated on research projects, shared grants, worked closely with, or had other significant academic relationships with any of the authors. Reviewers should also avoid reviewing manuscripts where a close personal relationship, professional rivalry, institutional relationship, or other circumstance could create a real or perceived conflict of interest. The Editorial Office reserves the right to determine the suitability and independence of proposed reviewers.

Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance

Reviewers invited to evaluate a manuscript for Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should review the manuscript title and abstract carefully before accepting the invitation. Reviewers should promptly accept or decline an invitation based on their expertise, availability, and ability to provide an objective and timely assessment. A reviewer should decline the invitation if the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise or if they do not possess sufficient subject knowledge to critically evaluate its scientific content, methodology, data, or interpretation. Reviewers should also decline the invitation if any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest could affect their impartiality. Reviewers who accept an invitation are expected to complete the review within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office. If additional time is required to provide a thorough and constructive review, the reviewer should contact the Editorial Office as early as possible and request an appropriate extension. Reviewers should not accept an assignment if they anticipate being unable to complete it within a reasonable timeframe.

If a reviewer declines an invitation, they may, where appropriate, recommend alternative qualified reviewers to the Editorial Office. However, any suggested reviewer should meet the journal’s eligibility requirements and should not have a conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers for Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) are responsible for providing an independent, objective, thorough, and scientifically informed assessment of the manuscripts assigned to them. Reviewers should carefully read the complete manuscript, including the abstract, main text, tables, figures, references, supplementary materials, and other relevant information provided for evaluation. Reviewers should critically assess the scientific quality, methodological rigor, validity of the study design, appropriateness of data analysis, reliability of the results, interpretation of findings, and validity of the conclusions. Where applicable, reviewers should also evaluate compliance with relevant ethical requirements and identify any concerns relating to research integrity, experimental procedures, statistical analysis, or reporting standards. All comments and recommendations should be evidence-based, specific, and relevant to the manuscript. Reviewers should distinguish between major scientific concerns and minor issues and should provide sufficient explanation to enable authors to understand and appropriately address the concerns raised.

Reviewers should maintain a constructive, respectful, and professional tone throughout the review process. Personal criticism, offensive language, discriminatory remarks, or comments unrelated to the scientific assessment of the manuscript should not be included in a review report. Reviewers are expected to submit their review reports within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office. If unforeseen circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as soon as possible and request an extension rather than delaying the review without notification.

Reviewers should remain responsive to reasonable communications from the Editorial Office throughout the peer-review process. They may be contacted for clarification regarding their review, additional assessment of a revised manuscript, or other matters related to the editorial evaluation. Reviewers should respond to such queries in a timely and professional manner.

Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Independence

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) requires all reviewers to maintain independence, objectivity, and impartiality throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, their evaluation of a manuscript. When in doubt, reviewers should disclose the circumstances to the Editorial Office before accepting or continuing the review. A reviewer should not accept or continue to review a manuscript when they are affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors, unless the Editorial Office determines that the relationship does not compromise the independence of the review. Reviewers should also disclose recent co-authorship, research collaboration, joint grants, shared projects, or other significant academic relationships with any of the authors. Personal or professional relationships that may affect the reviewer’s objectivity must be disclosed. This includes close personal relationships, professional associations, supervisory relationships, academic rivalry, or other circumstances that could create a favorable or unfavorable bias toward the authors or their work.

Reviewers must disclose any financial or commercial interest that could be affected by the publication of the manuscript. This may include direct financial interests, competing commercial interests, consultancy relationships, or other financial circumstances that could influence the reviewer’s judgment. Reviewers should also disclose intellectual, academic, competitive, or other non-financial interests that may create a real or perceived conflict. Particular attention should be given to situations in which the reviewer is working on closely related or competing research, may benefit academically from the outcome of the manuscript, or has a strong intellectual position that could affect an impartial assessment. Reviewers must not use privileged information obtained through the peer-review process for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage. They should evaluate manuscripts solely on their scientific and scholarly merits and must not allow personal interests, relationships, institutional affiliations, or competitive considerations to influence their recommendation.

The Editorial Office of CPR reserves the right to assess disclosed conflicts and determine whether a reviewer is suitable to undertake or continue a particular review. Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may result in withdrawal of the review assignment and, where appropriate, further action in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) requires reviewers to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all manuscripts and materials received during the peer-review process. Reviewers must treat the manuscript, associated data, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and all related communications as confidential and must not disclose their contents to any unauthorized person. Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, download for unauthorized use, or otherwise disclose the manuscript or any part of it to colleagues, students, collaborators, or other third parties without prior permission from the Editorial Office. If a reviewer believes that assistance from another qualified individual is necessary, the reviewer must obtain approval from the Editorial Office before sharing any part of the manuscript and must ensure that the individual agrees to maintain the same level of confidentiality. The identities of authors and reviewers must be protected throughout the double-anonymized peer-review process. Reviewers should not attempt to identify the authors of a manuscript and must not disclose or reveal their own identity to the authors through review comments, correspondence, document metadata, or any other means.

Reviewers must not use, reproduce, cite, or otherwise exploit unpublished data, findings, methods, ideas, figures, tables, or other information obtained through the peer-review process for their own research, publication, commercial activities, or personal or academic advantage. Such information may only be used after it has become publicly available or with explicit authorization from the authors and the journal, where appropriate. Reviewer reports, recommendations, editorial communications, and discussions related to the manuscript must remain confidential. Reviewers must not share their comments or recommendations with the authors, other reviewers, or third parties except through the authorized editorial process.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of the review and remain applicable regardless of whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, rejected, or withdrawn. Any suspected breach of confidentiality should be reported promptly to the Editorial Office of CPR for appropriate action.

Ethical Conduct of Reviewers

Reviewers for Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) are expected to conduct all peer-review activities with the highest standards of professional integrity, fairness, respect, and ethical responsibility. Reviewer comments should focus exclusively on the scientific and scholarly aspects of the manuscript and should contribute constructively to its evaluation and improvement. Reviewers must use respectful, professional, and objective language when communicating their comments. Discriminatory, derogatory, offensive, threatening, or inappropriate remarks concerning an author’s identity, background, nationality, gender, religion, institution, career status, or other personal characteristics are not acceptable. Reviewers must not make personal criticisms or comments directed at the authors rather than the scientific content of the manuscript. Criticism should be specific, evidence-based, and related to the study design, methodology, data, interpretation, conclusions, presentation, or other relevant scholarly aspects.

Reviewers must not intentionally delay the peer-review process for personal, academic, competitive, or any other inappropriate reason. A reviewer should complete the review within the agreed timeframe or promptly inform the Editorial Office if additional time is required. Reviewers must provide recommendations based solely on the scientific quality, originality, significance, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript to CPR. Recommendations must not be influenced by personal relationships, institutional affiliations, academic rivalry, nationality, reputation of the authors, commercial interests, or other sources of bias. Reviewers must not misuse confidential or privileged information obtained through peer review. Unpublished ideas, data, methods, results, figures, or other information contained in a manuscript must not be used for personal research, publication, academic advantage, commercial benefit, or any other purpose without appropriate authorization.

Any ethical concern, suspected misconduct, undisclosed conflict of interest, breach of confidentiality, or other serious issue identified during the review process should be communicated promptly and confidentially to the Editorial Office of CPR rather than being discussed directly with the authors.

Assessment of Manuscript Quality

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should evaluate each manuscript comprehensively and critically, considering its scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and overall contribution to the field. The assessment should be based on the content and evidence presented in the manuscript rather than on the authors’ identity, institutional reputation, or other non-scientific considerations.

Originality and Novelty

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents original work, a clearly defined research question, or a meaningful contribution beyond existing knowledge. The extent to which the study advances the current state of knowledge should be considered.

Relevance to the Scope of CPR

The manuscript should be relevant to the aims and scope of CPR. Reviewers should determine whether the subject matter, research objectives, and findings are appropriate for the journal and of potential interest to its readership.

Scientific Significance

Reviewers should assess the scientific importance of the research and whether the findings address a meaningful research question or knowledge gap. The significance of the results and their potential contribution to pharmaceutical and related sciences should be appropriately evaluated.

Scientific Soundness

The scientific rationale, study design, experimental approach, analytical methods, and interpretation should be scientifically appropriate and sufficiently robust to support the reported findings and conclusions.

Methodological Quality

Reviewers should evaluate whether the methodology is appropriate for the research objectives and whether sufficient methodological details are provided to understand and, where applicable, reproduce the study. Relevant controls, experimental conditions, materials, procedures, and analytical approaches should be adequately described.

Statistical Analysis

Where applicable, reviewers should assess whether the statistical methods are appropriate for the study design and type of data. The adequacy of sample size, selection of statistical tests, presentation of variability, significance testing, and interpretation of statistical results should be considered.

Reproducibility

Reviewers should determine whether the manuscript provides sufficient information regarding materials, methods, experimental conditions, analytical procedures, and other relevant details to enable appropriate replication of the reported work.

Data Quality and Integrity

Reviewers should assess whether the presented data are clear, consistent, sufficiently detailed, and appropriate to support the reported findings. Any apparent inconsistencies, unexplained discrepancies, inappropriate data presentation, or concerns regarding data integrity should be brought to the attention of the Editorial Office.

Interpretation of Results

The interpretation of results should be logical, scientifically justified, and consistent with the evidence presented. Reviewers should assess whether the authors appropriately distinguish between demonstrated findings, interpretation, and speculation and whether alternative explanations have been adequately considered where relevant.

Conclusions

The conclusions should directly reflect the results presented in the manuscript and should not extend beyond the available evidence. Reviewers should assess whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the study findings and whether important limitations have been appropriately acknowledged.

References

Reviewers should assess whether the cited literature is relevant, appropriate, and sufficiently comprehensive for the subject of the manuscript. Important and relevant literature should not be unnecessarily omitted, and references should appropriately support the statements for which they are cited. Excessive, irrelevant, or inappropriate self-citation should also be identified where applicable.

Tables and Figures

Tables, figures, schemes, and other graphical elements should accurately represent the information or data described in the manuscript. Reviewers should assess their clarity, relevance, consistency, appropriate labeling, and scientific interpretation and should identify any discrepancies between the visual elements and the main text.

Overall Presentation

Reviewers should consider the overall clarity, organization, coherence, and scientific presentation of the manuscript. The manuscript should communicate its objectives, methodology, findings, and conclusions in a clear and logical manner. Reviewers should focus primarily on scientific and scholarly issues, while minor language or formatting issues may be noted when they materially affect the understanding of the manuscript.

Review of Different Manuscript Types

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should consider the specific characteristics, objectives, methodological requirements, and reporting standards applicable to the type of manuscript under evaluation. The criteria outlined in the general manuscript assessment section should be applied appropriately according to the nature of the submission.

Original Research Articles

For original research articles, reviewers should evaluate the clarity and significance of the research question, appropriateness of the study design, adequacy of experimental methods, controls, sample size, statistical analysis, quality and integrity of the data, reproducibility, interpretation of findings, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the results. The originality and contribution of the work to pharmaceutical and related sciences should also be considered.

Review Articles

For review articles, reviewers should assess the relevance and importance of the topic, comprehensiveness and balance of the literature coverage, clarity of the review objectives, organization and critical analysis of the available evidence, accuracy of cited information, identification of knowledge gaps, and overall contribution to the field. Reviewers should distinguish between a critical and informative review and a manuscript that primarily summarizes previously published information without sufficient analysis or synthesis.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reviewers should assess the clarity of the research question, appropriateness and transparency of the search strategy, eligibility criteria, literature selection process, data extraction, assessment of study quality or risk of bias, methodological rigor, and appropriateness of the statistical methods used for meta-analysis. The consistency between the reported methodology, results, and conclusions should also be evaluated.

Short Communications and Brief Reports

For short communications and brief reports, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents a concise but scientifically meaningful finding that is appropriate for this article type. The scientific validity, originality, adequacy of supporting data, clarity of presentation, and appropriateness of the conclusions should be evaluated while considering the limited format and scope of the submission.

Methodological and Technical Articles

Where methodological or technical articles are considered by CPR, reviewers should evaluate the originality, scientific rationale, technical validity, methodological rigor, reproducibility, appropriate validation, and potential usefulness of the proposed method, technique, analytical procedure, or technological approach. Sufficient methodological details should be provided to allow qualified researchers to understand and reproduce the proposed approach where applicable.

Reviewers should apply the relevant criteria proportionately to the manuscript type and should avoid imposing requirements that are not scientifically justified for a particular category of submission.

Ethical and Research Integrity Concerns

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) have an important responsibility to identify and report potential concerns relating to research integrity and publication ethics. Reviewers should remain alert to evidence of misconduct or questionable research practices during the evaluation of a manuscript. Any concern should be assessed objectively and communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office rather than being raised directly with the authors as an allegation of misconduct.

Plagiarism

Reviewers should identify substantial unattributed use of text, ideas, data, figures, tables, or other material from previously published or unpublished sources. Appropriate citation does not necessarily eliminate concerns where substantial content has been reproduced without sufficient originality.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Reviewers should report concerns where substantially similar data, findings, or content appear to have been published previously or are being considered for publication elsewhere without appropriate disclosure. Manuscripts should provide a sufficiently distinct and original contribution.

Data Fabrication

Reviewers should report any reasonable concern that data, observations, experimental results, participants, samples, or other research information may have been invented or reported without having been generated through the stated research process.

Data Falsification

Reviewers should be alert to potential manipulation, alteration, omission, or selective presentation of research data that may misrepresent the findings or support conclusions that are not justified by the underlying evidence.

Image Manipulation

Where images are used as research data or evidence, reviewers should consider whether figures appear to have been inappropriately altered, duplicated, selectively enhanced, or manipulated in a manner that could affect their scientific interpretation. Suspected image-related concerns should be reported to the Editorial Office for appropriate investigation.

Salami Publication

Reviewers should identify situations in which a single research project appears to have been unnecessarily divided into multiple manuscripts with substantially overlapping data, objectives, or findings, particularly where such fragmentation may obscure the relationship between publications or create a misleading impression of independent contributions.

Unethical Experimentation

Reviewers should identify concerns regarding research involving human participants, animals, biological materials, or other regulated experimental procedures where appropriate ethical approval, informed consent, welfare considerations, or relevant regulatory requirements appear to be absent or inadequately reported.

Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should report any apparent financial, commercial, academic, personal, or other conflicts of interest that may affect the interpretation or credibility of the research, particularly where such conflicts have not been appropriately disclosed by the authors.

Questionable Authorship

Reviewers should report concerns relating to inappropriate authorship practices, including apparent honorary or guest authorship, undisclosed contributions, substantial contributions that may not be appropriately recognized, or other circumstances suggesting that the stated authorship may not accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Citation Manipulation

Reviewers should identify inappropriate attempts to inflate citation counts through excessive, irrelevant, or unjustified citations, including unnecessary self-citation, reciprocal citation practices, or citation requests that do not materially improve the scientific quality of the manuscript.

Reporting Suspected Misconduct

If a reviewer identifies suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical experimentation, authorship concerns, citation manipulation, duplicate publication, image manipulation, or any other potential breach of publication ethics, the concern should be reported promptly and confidentially to the Editorial Office of CPR. Reviewers should provide specific evidence or a clear explanation of the concern where possible and should avoid making definitive accusations against the authors.

The Editorial Office is responsible for assessing and investigating reported concerns and may seek additional information, documentation, expert assessment, or clarification from the authors when appropriate. Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected misconduct, contact the authors regarding allegations, or disclose their concerns to third parties.

Citation and Self-Citation Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should ensure that any references suggested during peer review are scientifically relevant, appropriate, and genuinely useful for improving the manuscript. Recommendations for additional citations should be based on the scientific content of the manuscript and should not be used to influence citation metrics or provide personal, academic, or journal-level benefit. Reviewers must not request or recommend unnecessary citations to their own publications, those of colleagues, collaborators, or other specific authors. Self-citation recommendations should only be made when the cited work is directly relevant and materially contributes to the scientific accuracy, completeness, or interpretation of the manuscript. Reviewers must not request authors to cite papers published in CPR merely to increase the journal’s citation count, visibility, or bibliometric performance. References to articles published in CPR should be recommended only when they are directly relevant to the manuscript and provide meaningful scientific value.

Citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation, reciprocal citation practices, honorary citations, coercive citation requests, or recommendations intended primarily to increase the citation metrics of a reviewer, author, group, or journal, is prohibited. Suggested references should be limited to those that clearly improve the manuscript by providing essential background, supporting a scientific statement, addressing an important knowledge gap, correcting an omission, or strengthening the interpretation of the findings. Reviewers should provide a brief scientific rationale when recommending important additional references.

The Editorial Office of CPR may evaluate patterns of inappropriate or excessive citation recommendations as part of its assessment of reviewer conduct. Reviewers who repeatedly engage in citation manipulation or coercive citation practices may be removed from the journal’s reviewer pool and may be subject to further action under the journal’s publication ethics policies.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI by Reviewers

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI tools may be used for certain legitimate purposes; however, their use during peer review must not compromise manuscript confidentiality, author rights, data privacy, intellectual property, or the integrity and independence of the peer-review process. Reviewers must not upload, submit, paste, or otherwise transfer any confidential or unpublished manuscript content into publicly accessible AI or generative AI platforms. This prohibition applies to the complete manuscript as well as any portion of the manuscript, including the abstract, text, figures, tables, datasets, supplementary materials, reviewer correspondence, and other unpublished information. Reviewers must not use AI systems to analyze or process confidential manuscript content where the information may be retained, accessed, used for training, or disclosed to third parties. Reviewers must not use generative AI tools to generate, substantially prepare, or independently produce peer-review reports. The scientific assessment, critical analysis, comments, and recommendations must be the reviewer’s own work. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of every statement and recommendation contained in their review report.

Where permitted by CPR, reviewers may use appropriate AI-assisted tools solely for limited language-related purposes, such as correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, readability, or general linguistic clarity. Such use must not involve uploading confidential manuscript content to a public or unauthorized AI platform. Reviewers must ensure that any permitted language assistance does not alter the scientific meaning, introduce unsupported criticism, or generate substantive scientific judgments. Any permitted use of AI or generative AI tools in preparing a review report must be disclosed to the Editorial Office at the time of submission of the review. The reviewer should indicate the nature and purpose of the AI assistance used. Disclosure does not authorize the use of AI for confidential manuscript analysis, scientific evaluation, or generation of substantive review content.

Reviewers must never upload unpublished figures, tables, datasets, experimental results, images, manuscript text, supplementary information, or other confidential material received during peer review into public AI systems. This restriction applies regardless of whether the material is uploaded in whole or in part and includes material provided through email, the journal’s submission system, or any other editorial communication.

Any inappropriate use of AI during peer review, including unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscript information or submission of an AI-generated review report, may result in withdrawal of the review, removal of the reviewer from the reviewer pool, and further action in accordance with the publication ethics policies of CPR.

The Editorial Office may update this policy as AI technologies, data-protection requirements, and recognized standards for responsible use of AI in scholarly peer review continue to evolve.

Review Report Structure and Writing Standards

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should prepare review reports that are clear, structured, specific, constructive, and scientifically justified. The report should provide the authors with sufficient information to understand the strengths and limitations of the manuscript and should assist the Editor in making an informed editorial decision.

Brief Manuscript Summary

The review should begin with a concise summary of the manuscript, including its primary objective, major findings, and overall scientific contribution. The summary should demonstrate that the reviewer has understood the manuscript and should provide appropriate context for the subsequent evaluation.

Major Strengths

Reviewers should identify the principal strengths of the manuscript, including significant aspects of its originality, scientific contribution, methodology, data quality, experimental design, or interpretation. Positive aspects should be acknowledged where appropriate.

Major Concerns

Major concerns are issues that may substantially affect the scientific validity, interpretation, originality, or suitability of the manuscript for publication. Reviewers should clearly explain each major concern and, where possible, provide specific recommendations that may help the authors address the issue.

Minor Concerns

Minor concerns may include issues that do not fundamentally affect the scientific conclusions but should be addressed to improve the clarity, accuracy, completeness, or presentation of the manuscript. These may include minor methodological clarifications, terminology, references, presentation issues, or inconsistencies.

Specific Comments

Reviewers should provide specific and actionable comments wherever possible. Comments should refer to relevant page numbers, line numbers, sections, tables, figures, schemes, or other identifiable parts of the manuscript to enable authors to locate and address the issue efficiently. Scientific comments should be sufficiently detailed to allow an appropriate response.

Recommendation to the Editor

Reviewers should provide an overall recommendation to the Editor based on their assessment of the manuscript. The recommendation should be consistent with the issues identified in the review report and should be supported by clear scientific reasoning. The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory, and the final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated Editorial Board member.

Reviewers should maintain a professional and constructive tone throughout the report. Comments should focus on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript and should not include personal criticism, discriminatory remarks, or unsupported allegations. Where serious concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics arise, these should be communicated confidentially to the Editorial Office in accordance with the relevant policies of CPR.

Reviewer Recommendation Categories

Following completion of the peer-review process, reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) should provide an overall recommendation based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and suitability of the manuscript for publication. The recommendation should be consistent with the issues identified in the review report and should be supported by clear and objective scientific reasoning.

Accept

The manuscript is scientifically sound, sufficiently original, relevant to the scope of CPR, and does not require substantive changes before publication. Any remaining issues should be minor and editorial in nature.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is generally suitable for publication but requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect the study’s scientific validity or overall conclusions. The authors should address the identified concerns before the manuscript can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript contains significant issues that require substantial revision before a publication decision can be reached. These may relate to methodology, experimental design, data analysis, interpretation, scientific justification, reporting, or other important aspects of the manuscript. A revised manuscript may be subject to further peer review.

Reject

The manuscript has fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, originality, or reporting deficiencies that cannot reasonably be addressed through revision, or it does not make a sufficient contribution to the field or fall within the scope of CPR.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final editorial decision. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated member of the Editorial Board after considering the reviewer reports, manuscript quality, author responses, and other relevant editorial considerations. Reviewers should ensure that their recommendation is appropriately justified by the comments provided in their review report.

Review Timelines and Extensions

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) are expected to complete their assigned peer reviews within the timeframe specified by the Editorial Office. Timely peer review is essential to maintaining an efficient and fair publication process and to minimizing unnecessary delays for authors.

Normal Review Period

The Editorial Office will provide reviewers with a specified deadline for completion of each review assignment. Reviewers should submit their reports within the stated period and should accept an invitation only when they are reasonably confident that they can complete the review within the assigned timeframe.

Extension Requests

If a reviewer requires additional time to complete a thorough and objective assessment, an extension should be requested from the Editorial Office as early as possible and, preferably, before the original deadline. Extension requests should indicate the additional time required, and approval remains at the discretion of the Editorial Office.

Delayed Reviews

Reviewers should avoid unnecessary delays in submitting their reports. If circumstances arise that may significantly affect the expected completion date, the reviewer should promptly inform the Editorial Office. Repeated or unexplained delays may be considered when determining future reviewer assignments.

Non-Responsive Reviewers

If an invited reviewer does not respond to the invitation or fails to communicate with the Editorial Office within a reasonable period, the Editorial Office may withdraw the invitation and invite an alternative reviewer. Similarly, a reviewer who repeatedly fails to submit an accepted review or does not respond to editorial communications may be removed from the assignment.

Replacement of Reviewers

The Editorial Office may replace a reviewer when necessary to maintain the efficiency, fairness, and quality of the peer-review process. Replacement may occur when a reviewer declines the assignment, becomes unavailable, has an undisclosed conflict of interest, is unable to complete the review within a reasonable timeframe, provides an inadequate review, or otherwise cannot participate appropriately in the review process.

Replacement of a reviewer does not imply any adverse judgment regarding the reviewer and is undertaken solely to ensure that the manuscript receives an appropriate and timely evaluation.

Revised Manuscripts and Re-Review

Reviewers of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) may be invited to evaluate revised manuscripts to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns and recommendations raised during the previous round of peer review. The assessment of a revised manuscript should focus on the substantive changes made by the authors and the extent to which the manuscript has been improved.

Reviewer Response to Revisions

Reviewers should carefully examine the revised manuscript together with the authors’ response to the previous review comments. The reviewer should assess whether the revisions are appropriate, scientifically justified, and consistent with the concerns raised during the initial review.

Point-by-Point Response Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate the authors’ point-by-point response to determine whether each major and minor comment has been adequately addressed. Where the authors have chosen not to implement a suggested revision, the reviewer should assess whether the explanation provided is scientifically reasonable and adequately justified.

Assessment of Previous Concerns

Reviewers should determine whether the substantive concerns identified during the previous review have been satisfactorily resolved. Particular attention should be given to major issues relating to study design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation, scientific validity, ethical considerations, and conclusions. Reviewers should avoid raising entirely new substantive requirements unless they arise from changes made in the revised manuscript or are necessary to address an important scientific or ethical issue.

Additional Review Round

A further round of peer review may be undertaken when necessary to determine whether significant concerns have been adequately resolved. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or, where appropriate, assigned to additional reviewers with relevant expertise. The decision to conduct further review remains with the Editorial Office or designated Editor. Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation following the assessment of the revised manuscript and should explain any remaining concerns that may affect the final editorial decision.

Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgement

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) recognizes peer review as an essential scholarly contribution and values the time, expertise, and professional effort provided by its reviewers. The journal may provide appropriate forms of recognition to reviewers who consistently contribute high-quality, timely, constructive, and ethical peer-review reports.

Reviewer Certificates

Reviewers who successfully complete peer-review assignments may be provided with an official reviewer certificate acknowledging their contribution to CPR. Certificates may be issued electronically and may include the reviewer’s name, journal name, manuscript reference, and date of completion, as appropriate.

Annual Reviewer Acknowledgement

Subject to the journal’s policy and reviewer consent, CPR may acknowledge the contributions of reviewers through an annual list of reviewers who have assisted the journal during the preceding year. Such acknowledgement will respect reviewer confidentiality and will not disclose individual manuscript details or review outcomes.

Outstanding Reviewer Recognition

CPR may recognize reviewers who demonstrate consistently high standards of scientific assessment, constructive feedback, timely completion of assignments, and adherence to publication ethics. Outstanding Reviewer recognition may be based on the quality, thoroughness, timeliness, and professionalism of review reports rather than the number of reviews completed alone.

Reviewer Database and Profile

The journal may maintain an internal reviewer database containing relevant professional information, areas of expertise, institutional affiliation, reviewing history, and other information necessary for appropriate reviewer selection. Reviewer information will be handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

ORCID and Web of Science Recognition

Where applicable and subject to reviewer consent and the policies of the relevant services, CPR may support recognition of completed peer-review activities through services such as ORCID and the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition service. Review activity will only be shared or recorded in a manner that preserves manuscript confidentiality and complies with the journal’s peer-review model. Reviewer recognition is intended to acknowledge scholarly service and does not influence editorial decisions, reviewer selection, or the scientific assessment of manuscripts.

Reviewer Misconduct and Removal

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) expects all reviewers to maintain the highest standards of confidentiality, objectivity, professional conduct, and publication ethics. Reviewer misconduct includes any action or omission that compromises the fairness, confidentiality, integrity, or reliability of the peer-review process. The Editorial Office may investigate suspected reviewer misconduct and take appropriate action based on the nature and seriousness of the concern.

Breach of Confidentiality

Reviewers must not disclose, share, reproduce, or distribute confidential manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, or other information obtained through the peer-review process without authorization. Any unauthorized disclosure may constitute a breach of reviewer confidentiality.

Biased or Fraudulent Review

Reviewers must provide independent and objective assessments based on the scientific and scholarly merits of the manuscript. Deliberately biased reviews, fabricated review comments, knowingly misleading assessments, or recommendations influenced by personal, academic, financial, or competitive interests may be considered reviewer misconduct.

Harassment or Inappropriate Conduct

Reviewers must communicate with authors and the Editorial Office in a professional and respectful manner. Harassment, intimidation, discriminatory remarks, personal attacks, threatening language, derogatory comments, or other inappropriate conduct during the peer-review process are not acceptable.

Citation Manipulation

Reviewers must not engage in coercive, excessive, irrelevant, or unjustified citation recommendations intended to increase their own citations, those of specific authors, or the citation metrics of CPR or another journal. Repeated or deliberate citation manipulation may constitute reviewer misconduct.

Misuse of Unpublished Information

Reviewers must not use confidential or unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research, publication, academic advancement, commercial purposes, competitive advantage, or any other unauthorized benefit. This includes unpublished ideas, data, methods, results, figures, tables, and other intellectual content.

Unauthorized Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must comply with the CPR policy governing the use of artificial intelligence and generative AI during peer review. Unauthorized uploading of confidential manuscript content to AI systems, use of AI to generate substantive review reports, or other AI-related practices that compromise confidentiality or the integrity of peer review may be considered reviewer misconduct.

Repeated Poor-Quality or Non-Responsive Reviews

The Editorial Office may review a reviewer’s continued suitability where there is a pattern of substantially inadequate, superficial, irrelevant, repeatedly late, or non-responsive review activity. A single instance of a delayed or inadequate review will not necessarily constitute misconduct; however, persistent failure to meet the journal’s reviewer responsibilities may result in removal from the active reviewer pool.

Reviewer Removal or Suspension

Depending on the nature and severity of the concern, the Editorial Office may take one or more appropriate actions, including requesting clarification, withdrawing an assigned manuscript, discontinuing future review invitations, temporarily suspending the reviewer, or permanently removing the reviewer from the CPR reviewer database.

Where serious concerns are identified, the Editorial Office may undertake an appropriate internal assessment and may seek relevant information or clarification before reaching a decision. Reviewers will be given an opportunity to provide an explanation where appropriate. Any action taken will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the conduct and will be guided by the journal’s publication ethics standards.

Removal or suspension from the reviewer pool does not affect the confidentiality obligations of the reviewer, which continue after the termination of the review assignment or reviewer relationship with CPR.

Editorial Authority and Final Decision

The peer-review process of Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) is intended to provide independent and expert assessments to support the editorial decision-making process. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final decision regarding the publication of a manuscript. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board. Editorial decisions are made after consideration of the reviewers’ reports, the scientific quality and originality of the manuscript, the authors’ responses to reviewer comments, ethical and research integrity considerations, the relevance of the manuscript to the scope of CPR, and other relevant editorial factors. The Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board may accept, modify, or disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation when justified by the overall evidence and editorial assessment. A manuscript may also be sent for additional peer review when the reviewers’ recommendations are conflicting, when specialized expertise is required, or when further assessment is considered necessary.

Reviewers should therefore provide clear, objective, and well-supported recommendations while recognizing that editorial responsibility for the final publication decision remains with the journal. The Editorial Office may also take appropriate action to ensure that editorial decisions are fair, consistent, independent, and aligned with the publication ethics and scientific standards of CPR.

Reviewer Data Protection and Use of Reviewer Information

Current Pharmaceutical Research (CPR) respects the privacy and confidentiality of its reviewers and is committed to handling reviewer information responsibly and in accordance with applicable data-protection and privacy requirements. Reviewer information is collected and processed only for legitimate purposes related to peer review, editorial administration, reviewer recognition, and the effective operation of the journal.

Reviewer Information Collected

The Editorial Office may collect and maintain information necessary for reviewer identification, selection, communication, and management. Such information may include the reviewer’s name, email address, institutional affiliation, academic or professional designation, areas of expertise, ORCID iD, research interests, publication record, professional profile, reviewer history, and other information voluntarily provided by the reviewer or obtained from publicly available scholarly sources.

Purpose of Using Reviewer Information

Reviewer information may be used to identify and select suitable reviewers, communicate review invitations and editorial queries, manage peer-review assignments, assess reviewer expertise and conflicts of interest, maintain reviewer records, issue reviewer certificates, acknowledge reviewer contributions, and administer reviewer recognition activities. The journal may also use reviewer information to improve reviewer selection, maintain the quality and efficiency of the peer-review process, and prevent inappropriate or fraudulent reviewing activities.

Confidentiality of Reviewer Identity

The identity of reviewers participating in the double-anonymized peer-review process will be kept confidential and will not be disclosed to authors unless disclosure is permitted under the journal’s applicable peer-review policy and with the appropriate consent of the reviewer. Reviewer names, email addresses, affiliations, review reports, and other identifying information must not be disclosed to authors or unauthorized third parties during the confidential peer-review process.

Use of Reviewer Email Addresses

Reviewer email addresses may be used by the Editorial Office for legitimate journal-related communication, including peer-review invitations, reminders, review-related correspondence, editorial queries, reviewer certificates, and other communications directly related to reviewer activities. Reviewer email addresses will not be sold, rented, or shared with unrelated third parties for commercial marketing purposes. Where communication or data processing by a third-party service provider is necessary for journal operations, appropriate safeguards should be applied to protect reviewer information.

Reviewer Profiles and Scholarly Identifiers

Where voluntarily provided or publicly available, the journal may associate reviewer information with scholarly identifiers or professional profiles, such as ORCID iD or other recognized academic services, for the purpose of verifying expertise, maintaining accurate reviewer records, or facilitating recognition of peer-review contributions. Any external recognition or transfer of reviewer activity should be undertaken in accordance with the policies of the relevant service and without compromising the confidentiality of manuscripts or peer-review reports.

Reviewer Recognition and Public Disclosure

CPR may acknowledge reviewers through certificates, annual reviewer acknowledgements, outstanding reviewer recognition, or other scholarly recognition initiatives. Public acknowledgement of a reviewer’s name will be undertaken only in accordance with the journal’s applicable policy and, where required, with the reviewer’s consent. Public recognition will not disclose confidential manuscript information, reviewer reports, editorial recommendations, or the identity of authors associated with individual review assignments.

Retention and Security of Reviewer Information

Reviewer information should be retained only for as long as reasonably necessary for legitimate editorial, administrative, ethical, record-keeping, or legal purposes. The Editorial Office should take appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect reviewer information against unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, loss, or misuse. Access to reviewer information should be restricted to authorized personnel who require such information for legitimate journal operations.

Reviewer Rights and Requests

Reviewers may contact the Editorial Office regarding their personal information and may request appropriate correction of inaccurate or outdated information, subject to applicable legal, ethical, and editorial record-keeping requirements. Requests concerning access, correction, deletion, or other rights relating to personal information will be handled in accordance with applicable data-protection requirements and the journal’s operational obligations. By accepting a peer-review invitation, reviewers acknowledge that their information may be processed for the legitimate purposes described in this policy. CPR may update this policy when necessary to reflect changes in applicable privacy requirements, editorial practices, or journal operations.