Peer Review Process

Advanced Drug Sciences (ADS) operates a rigorous and transparent peer review system to ensure the integrity, quality, and scientific validity of published research. The journal follows a double-blind peer review model, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation process.

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on scientific merit, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical standards, including those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial Workflow

  1. Submission: Manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online submission system and must comply with the journal’s formatting and ethical requirements.
  2. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review): The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript for scope, originality, ethical compliance, and overall scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.
  3. Reviewer Assignment: Suitable manuscripts are assigned to independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Typically, two or more reviewers are invited.
  4. Peer Review: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed comments and recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject).
  5. Editorial Decision: The handling editor makes a decision based on reviewer reports and independent assessment. Where necessary, additional reviews may be solicited.
  6. Revision Process: Authors are invited to revise their manuscript in response to reviewer comments. Revised submissions may undergo further review.
  7. Final Decision: The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor makes the final decision on acceptance.
  8. Production and Publication: Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and final proofing prior to online publication.

Editorial and Publication Timeline

ADS is committed to maintaining an efficient and timely peer review process while ensuring rigorous scientific evaluation. The following timelines represent the journal’s target operational timeframes:

  • Initial Editorial Assessment: Approximately 1–3 days
  • Peer Review Process: Approximately 2–4 weeks
  • First Decision: Approximately 3–5 weeks from submission
  • Final Decision (after revision): Typically within 1–2 weeks following resubmission
  • Online Publication (post-acceptance): Approximately 1–2 weeks after final acceptance

These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, and the extent of revisions required.

Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and prior reviewing experience.
  • All reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment.
  • Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Reviews should be objective, constructive, and supported by clear arguments.

Ethical Considerations

  • All submissions are screened for plagiarism and ethical compliance.
  • The journal does not tolerate data fabrication, falsification, or unethical research practices.
  • Conflicts of interest must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors.
  • Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Editorial Decision Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:

  • Scientific originality and novelty
  • Methodological rigor and reproducibility
  • Clarity of presentation and organization
  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
  • Ethical compliance and research integrity