British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (BJPMR) is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of research papers, reviews, mini-reviews, Short communications and case studies.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Policy statement – Human and Animal Rights
Any investigations involving humans and animals should be approved by the Institutional Review Board and Animal Care Committee, respectively, of the institution where the study took place. British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (BJPMR) will not consider any studies involving humans or animals without the appropriate approval.
If no formal ethics committee is available, the authors should indicate whether the procedures were compliant with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2008. Informed consent should be obtained, unless waived by the Institutional Review Board, from patients who participated in clinical investigations. Human subjects should not be identifiable, such that patients’ names, initials, hospital numbers, dates of birth, or other protected healthcare information should not be disclosed. If experiments involve animals, the research should be based on national or institutional guidelines for animal care and use. Original articles submitted to British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (BJPMR) that address any investigation involving humans and animals should include a description about whether the study was conducted under an approval by the Institutional Review Board (with or without patient informed consent) and animal care committee, respectively, of the institution where the study was conducted.
Policy statement – Conflict of Interest
All Authors publishing in British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (BJPMR) must declare all financial disclosures and conflicts of interest in the article file of manuscripts submitted for publication.
Policy statement – Informed Consent
Screening for plagiarism
The journal staff has a policy of screening for plagiarism. All articles in this publication are original: the content (either in full or in part) in each article has not been knowingly republished without specific citation to the original release.
Peer Review Process
All submissions will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. All manuscripts will be acknowledged upon presenting to the Journal office, provided that all stated requirements are met. All manuscript subjected to preliminary review by editorial team before sending it to the reviewers for review. Review process depends on receiving reviewers comments and revision of manuscript by authors must adhere with the comments provided by reviewers. No article is rejected unless negative comments are received from at least one reviewer.
Approximately 53 percent of submitted manuscripts are accepted for publication.
Authors should expect to hear the results of the manuscript peer review within 5 weeks from the date of submission. Authors receive the reviewers’ comments and are often asked to revise the manuscript in line with the reviewers’ and/or editor’s suggestions within 4 weeks. If the revised article is accepted for publication, the editor then determines the journal issue in which it will appear. Accepted articles will usually appear in the next issue of the journal.
Section A: Duties of Author
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission’s compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
1. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
2. The submission file is in Open Office, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
3. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
4. Manuscripts should be written as per instructions provided in Authors Guidelines section and accompanied by a covering letter stating the originality and significance of the submitted manuscripts.
5. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.
6. Numbers of Authors: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study.
7. If at any point of time, the author(s)discovers a significant error in submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.
8. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
9. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
10. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
11. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Section B: Reviewers’ responsibilities
1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Section C: Editorial Staff’s responsibilities
1. The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
2. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
3. An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
4. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
GUIDE TO REVIEWERS
British Journal of Pharmaceutical and Medical Research (BJPMR) team value reviewers’ recommendations and our systems are designed to make reviews easier for them to accept articles for review, complete their reviews and provide rapid feedback.
Confidentiality is very important in all aspects of the reviewing cycle; we expect the highest standards of professional behavior from all our reviewers. Author data must be kept securely until discarded by electronic shredding. Manuscript be written in high quality English and be justified. It is essential that all reviewers declare any conflicts of or completing interests.
Recommendations to the editor:
These comments are confidential. Only the Editor-in-Chief and/or Executive Editor will have access to this. We recommend that the space to be used to report any serious concern about the study directly to the senior editors.
Recommendations to the authors:
This is the main peer-review reporting area. This section is visible for authors as well as for editor-in-Chief. Reviewer can leave their detailed comments in this section after review. It will be very useful if the reviewer divided his/her review report into sub-sections (e.g. abstract, introduction…etc.) and commented on each of them independently. It may help our authors if these questions are answered:
1. Is the title of paper within the scope of the journal?
2. Is the rationale for this work well stated?
3. Are the objectives clearly stated?
4. Are assumptions described and their reasonableness supported or rejected?
5. Are limitations and uncertainties in the data and analyses given?
6. Were alternative hypotheses and interpretations adequately considered?
7. Are the results presented in an objective, unbiased fashion?
8. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
9. Is the writing clear, concise and precise? 10. Are the results original?
11. Are the results significant?
12. Are the references citation pattern is perfect?
13. Are the figures/illustrations/tables relevant?
14. Are tables, figure captions/legends appropriate?
Recommendation by reviewers
Accept (Accept as it is, no changes)
Revision required (author must respond comments provided and resubmit the revised manuscript within given period of time. Revised manuscript will be accepted or again will be sent to reviewer) See comments (Author must respond the given comments. Editor will take the appropriate decision after receiving the revise article as per comments provided).
Decline (article has low standard as compare to scientific requirement of journal).