Reviewer Guidelines

Advanced Drug Sciences (ADS) relies on the expertise and integrity of peer reviewers to ensure the quality, validity, and impact of published research. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the standards of the scholarly record through objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

These guidelines are developed in accordance with internationally recognized best practices, including those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Role of the Reviewer

Peer review assists editors in making informed editorial decisions and supports authors in improving the clarity, rigor, and impact of their work. Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and without personal bias.

2. Acceptance of Review Invitations

  • Reviewers should accept assignments only if they have sufficient subject expertise.
  • Reviewers must decline invitations where a conflict of interest exists.
  • Reviewers should ensure they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.

3. Confidentiality

  • Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
  • Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use unpublished material for personal advantage.
  • Consultation with colleagues is permitted only with prior approval from the editor.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data manipulation.
  • Identify ethical concerns related to human or animal research.
  • Declare all conflicts of interest prior to or during review.

5. Conducting the Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Originality and Novelty: Contribution to the field
  • Scientific Rigor: Study design, methodology, and analysis
  • Data Integrity: Validity and reproducibility of findings
  • Clarity and Structure: Logical presentation and organization
  • Relevance: Alignment with the journal’s scope

Reviews should provide constructive, evidence-based feedback, highlighting both strengths and areas requiring improvement.

6. Structure of the Review Report

  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript
  • Major Comments: Substantive issues affecting validity or interpretation
  • Minor Comments: Clarity, formatting, or language issues
  • Recommendation: Accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject

7. Objectivity and Professionalism

  • Reviews should be respectful, constructive, and free from personal criticism.
  • Criticism should be supported by clear reasoning and, where appropriate, references.

8. Timeliness

  • Reviews should be completed within the agreed timeframe.
  • If delays are unavoidable, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

9. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

  • Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of the content to generative AI tools.
  • AI tools must not be used to generate or write review reports.
  • Any limited use of tools must not compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

10. Reviewer Training and Resources

Reviewers seeking to improve their peer review skills may consult the following resources:

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to adhere to these guidelines and to uphold the highest standards of scientific integrity and professional conduct.