Palestinian Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal (Pal. Med. Pharm. J.)

Peer Review Policy

The Palestinian Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal (PMPJ) is committed to rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review as the cornerstone of scientific publishing integrity. All primary research articles, review articles, and case reports submitted to PMPJ are subject to external peer review before any decision regarding publication is made. No article is accepted for publication without having undergone this process.

 PMPJ adheres to the peer review standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This policy is publicly accessible on the journal website and applies uniformly to all manuscript types and all authors, including members of the editorial board.

2.1 Double-Blind Peer Review

PMPJ uses double-blind peer review for all submissions. In this process:

•       Author anonymity: The identities of all authors are concealed from reviewers throughout the review process.

•       Reviewer anonymity: The identities of all reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

•       Neither authors nor reviewers are made aware of each other's identity at any stage, including after publication.

 2.2 Minimum Number of Reviewers

Every submission must be evaluated by at least two (2) independent external reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, where reviewer opinions are conflicting or additional expertise is required.

 2.3 External and Independent Reviewers

Reviewers must be:

•       External: Not employed by or affiliated with An-Najah National University, unless no alternative qualified reviewer can be identified.

•       Independent: Free from any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors that could bias their evaluation.

•       Expert: Possessing demonstrable expertise in the subject area of the manuscript under review.

•       Non-conflicted: Not a co-author, collaborator, or supervisor of any of the submitting authors within the past five years.

4.1 Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening within 3 business days. This screening evaluates:

•       Alignment of the manuscript with the journal's stated aims and scope.

•       Adherence to ethical requirements, including human/animal ethics approval where applicable.

•       Completeness of the submission (all required files, author information, declarations).

•       Basic language clarity and scientific coherence are sufficient to send for review.

•       Absence of obvious plagiarism (checked via anti-plagiarism software prior to review).

Manuscripts that do not pass initial screening are rejected without external review, and the corresponding author is notified within 3 business days of submission, along with the reason for rejection.

 4.2 Reviewer Selection

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor selects reviewers based on:

•       Demonstrated expertise in the specific subject area of the manuscript.

•       Active publication record in the relevant field (within the past five years).

•       Absence of conflicts of interest with the submitting authors.

•       Availability and willingness to complete the review within the required timeframe.

 Reviewers are identified through the journal's reviewer database, author-suggested reviewers (subject to conflict-of-interest checks), editorial board recommendations, and the Web of Science Reviewer Locator tool. Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers and may request exclusion of up to two reviewers, with justification. The editorial team is not bound by these suggestions.

 4.3 Review Invitation and Confirmation

Invited reviewers receive:

•       A review invitation containing: the manuscript title, abstract, and confirmation that their identity will remain anonymous to the authors.

•       A deadline of 14 calendar days from acceptance to submit their completed review.

•       These Reviewer Guidelines and the journal's publication ethics policy.

•       A conflict-of-interest declaration form to be completed before beginning the review.

Reviewers who are unable to accept an invitation are encouraged to suggest alternative qualified reviewers. If a reviewer does not respond within 5 business days, the invitation is withdrawn, and a new reviewer is sought.

 4.4 The Review

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on the following criteria:

 4.5 Reviewer Recommendations

Upon completing their review, reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

•       Accept as is: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no revisions required.

•       Minor revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication, subject to minor corrections that do not require a further full review.

•       Major revisions: The manuscript has significant merit but requires substantial revision. A revised version will be sent for re-review.

•       Reject and resubmit: The manuscript has potential but requires fundamental restructuring. Authors may resubmit as a new submission.

•       Reject: The manuscript does not meet the scientific or ethical standards of PMPJ and is not suitable for publication.

 4.6 Editorial Decision

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief takes reviewer recommendations into account but is not bound by them. The Editor-in-Chief will not make a decision on a manuscript for which they have a conflict of interest — in such cases, the decision is delegated to a senior Associate Editor.

 Possible decisions following peer review are:

•       Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication.

•       Accept with minor revisions: Author revisions are reviewed by the editor; no additional external review is required.

•       Major revisions required: The revised manuscript is returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

•       Reject: The manuscript is declined. Authors are informed of the reasons and may appeal (see Section 7).

 4.7 Timelines

5.1 Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to PMPJ are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the content of any manuscript under review — including its existence — with any third party without the explicit permission of the Editor-in-Chief. This obligation continues after the review is complete and after the manuscript is published or rejected.

 5.2 Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any actual or potential conflict of interest before beginning a review. Conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

•       A current or recent collaborative or employment relationship with any of the authors (within the past five years).

•       A financial interest in the outcome of the research.

•       A personal relationship (positive or negative) with any of the authors.

•       A competing manuscript or publication on the same topic.

•       Being a named or unnamed co-author on the submitted work.

Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest must decline the invitation to review immediately and notify the editor. The editor will then seek an alternative reviewer.

5.3 Fairness and Objectivity

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and solely on scientific merit. Reviewers must not be influenced by:

•       The nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, or institutional affiliation of any author.

•       The perceived prestige or reputation of the authors or their institution.

•       Whether the findings support or contradict the reviewer's own research.

•       Any personal bias for or against the authors.

 5.4 Prohibition on Use of Manuscript Content

Reviewers must not use, cite, or apply any information, ideas, or data from a manuscript under review for their own research, publications, or any other purpose without the explicit written consent of the authors. Any inadvertent use must be immediately disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief.

 5.5 AI-Assisted Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to any generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, or similar) for the purposes of generating review content. Reviews must represent the reviewer's own independent scholarly judgment. Limited use of AI tools for grammar or language checking of the reviewer's own written comments is permissible, provided the reviewer takes full responsibility for the final content of the review.

6.1 Right to Be Informed

Authors will receive timely communication at every stage of the review process, including acknowledgment of submission, notification of the editorial screening decision, notification of the review decision with reasons, and notification of the final editorial decision.

6.2 Right to Respond to Reviewers

When authors are asked to revise their manuscript, they will receive the full, anonymized reviewer comments. Authors are required to submit a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment, explaining how the manuscript has been revised or, where the authors disagree with a reviewer comment, providing a clear scientific justification for not making the suggested change.

 6.3 Suggested and Excluded Reviewers

Authors may suggest up to three (3) potential reviewers and may request exclusion of up to two (2) reviewers with written justification (e.g., documented conflict of interest). All suggestions are at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Suggested reviewers will not be used if they have a conflict of interest with the editorial team or if their expertise is not appropriate.

 6.4 Appeal of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected on the basis of an unfair or erroneous review may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 calendar days of the rejection decision. The appeal must:

•       Be submitted in writing via the journal's submission system.

•       Identify the specific scientific or procedural grounds for the appeal.

•       Not simply repeat the arguments made in the original manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek the opinion of an independent editorial board member. A decision on the appeal will be communicated within 30 business days. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on the appeal is final.

7.1 Plagiarism Screening

All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism prior to external peer review using industry-standard software. Manuscripts with a similarity index that raises concern are examined by the Editor-in-Chief before a decision on whether to proceed to review is made.

 Manuscripts found to contain plagiarized content will be rejected immediately. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, the article will be retracted in accordance with the journal's Retraction and Correction Policy.

7.2 Fabrication and Falsification

Any manuscript found to contain fabricated or falsified data — whether before or after publication — will be immediately rejected or retracted. The matter will be reported to the authors' institutions in accordance with COPE guidelines.

 7.3 Duplicate Submission and Self-Plagiarism

Submission of a manuscript to PMPJ constitutes the authors' confirmation that the work has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals is strictly prohibited. Substantial re-use of the authors' own previously published text (self-plagiarism) without appropriate citation will also be treated as a breach of publication ethics.

8.1 Manuscripts Involving Editorial Board Members

When a submitted manuscript includes an author who is a member of the PMPJ editorial board — including the Editor-in-Chief — the handling of the manuscript is delegated entirely to a senior Associate Editor or external editor who has no connection to the author. The submitting editor/author has no involvement in reviewer selection, the review process, or the editorial decision. In accordance with PMPJ editorial policy, manuscripts with at least one editorial board member as author may not exceed 20% of total published articles per year.

 8.2 Post-Publication Review Concerns

PMPJ welcomes good-faith concerns from readers or reviewers about the scientific integrity of published articles. Such concerns should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief. The journal will investigate all concerns in accordance with COPE guidelines and, where appropriate, will issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as required.

 In exceptional circumstances — such as public health emergencies — the Editor-in-Chief may authorize an expedited review process. Even in fast-track cases, a minimum of two external peer reviewers must complete their evaluation before an acceptance decision is made.

PMPJ recognizes the critical and voluntary role that peer reviewers play in maintaining the quality of the scientific literature. The journal acknowledges reviewers' contributions through:

•       Annual reviewer acknowledgment: A list of reviewers who have contributed during the calendar year is published on the journal website (with reviewer consent).

•       Reviewer Recognition Service: PMPJ participates in Clarivate's Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, enabling reviewers to receive formal credit for their peer review contributions.

Reviewer feedback: Editors provide constructive feedback to reviewers on the quality of their reviews to support