Reviewer Guidelines
Peer Review Guidelines
The editorial board of Holistica Pharmatica Scientia extends our deepest gratitude to our peer reviewers. Your critical evaluations and constructive feedback are the cornerstones of our journal's scientific integrity. To ensure a standardized, fair, and rigorous evaluation process, we kindly request all reviewers to adhere to the following guidelines.
1. Ethical Responsibilities
❯Confidentiality: All manuscripts under review are strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any unpublished data, concepts, or information contained in the manuscript for personal or third-party advantage.
❯Conflict of Interest (COI): If a reviewer suspects a potential conflict of interest (financial, collaborative, or personal) that may bias their evaluation, they must immediately decline the review request or consult the editorial team before proceeding.
❯Double-Blind Policy: We employ a strict double-blind peer-review process where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. If a reviewer accidentally discovers the author's identity, they must remain completely objective.
❯Constructive & Objective Feedback: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments to help authors improve their work.
2. Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript comprehensively based on the following crucial aspects:
❯Originality and Scope: Does the manuscript contribute novel findings to the pharmaceutical and applied health sciences? Is it within the journal's stated focus and scope?
❯Title & Abstract: Does the title accurately reflect the content? Does the structured abstract provide a clear, concise summary of the study's objective, methods, results, and conclusions?
❯Methodological Rigor: Are the study design, sampling, and analytical methods scientifically sound, replicable, and appropriate for the research question? For clinical or animal studies, is ethical clearance explicitly stated?
❯Results and Discussion: Are the results presented clearly using appropriate tables or figures? Does the discussion interpret the findings logically, compare them with existing literature, and acknowledge study limitations?
❯Language and Formatting: Is the language (English or Indonesian) academically proper and comprehensible? Do the references strictly follow the Vancouver citation style?
3. Recommendation Categories
After completing the evaluation, reviewers must select one of the following recommendations in the OJS system:
❯Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form without further changes.
❯Revisions Required (Minor): The manuscript requires minor corrections (e.g., typographical errors, formatting, slight clarifications) that do not necessitate a second round of review.
❯Resubmit for Review (Major): The manuscript has potential but requires significant restructuring, re-analysis of data, or extensive rewriting. The revised manuscript will be sent back to the reviewer for a second evaluation.
❯Decline Submission: The manuscript has fundamental scientific flaws, lacks originality, falls outside the journal's scope, or exhibits signs of plagiarism/ethical misconduct.
4. How to Submit Your Review via OJS
All reviews must be submitted through our OJS 3 platform. Please follow these steps:
❯Step 1: Log in to your OJS account and navigate to the Review tab on your dashboard.
❯Step 2: Respond to the review request (Accept or Decline). If accepted, proceed to Step 3.
❯Step 3: Download the manuscript file(s) and any supplementary materials.
❯Step 4: Enter your comments in the provided text boxes (you may separate comments intended for the Author and those strictly for the Editor). You may also upload an annotated/reviewed file.
❯Step 5: Select your final recommendation from the dropdown menu and click "Submit Review."
