Information for Reviewers

Peer-review model and editorial workflow

All manuscripts submitted to FARMACIA are evaluated prior to acceptance through peer review. Following an initial editorial assessment for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, scientific priority, and basic methodological adequacy, manuscripts considered suitable for review are typically assessed by independent academic reviewers. The handling editor may (i) reject a manuscript without external review if it falls outside scope or does not meet minimum scientific standards, (ii) request revisions prior to a final decision, or (iii) proceed to acceptance after satisfactory peer-review and revision.

Reviewers are requested to provide evidence-based, constructive, and actionable comments that help the editor reach a decision and help authors improve the manuscript. Reviews should clearly distinguish between:

Major issues (validity, ethics, critical missing controls/analyses, interpretability, novelty/scope fit)
Minor issues (clarity, organization, completeness of reporting, presentation, language)

Where possible, comments should reference specific sections, figures, tables, or line/page numbers.

Structure of the review (recommended)

Reviewers are encouraged to follow the outline below for original research articles (and adapt as needed for reviews, short communications, or other formats).

(A) Brief overview

Provide a short summary of the study question, approach, and principal findings.
Comment on overall significance and suitability for FARMACIA.

(B) Rationale, introduction, and discussion

Are the research question, objectives, and hypothesis (if relevant) clearly stated?
Is the novelty and scientific contribution supported by the literature?
Are key prior studies appropriately cited, including the most relevant and recent work?
Are conclusions balanced and consistent with the presented evidence?
Are limitations and sources of bias acknowledged and discussed appropriately?

Are the study design and methods described with enough detail to ensure reproducibility?
Are statistical methods appropriate (including assumptions, power/sample size considerations, multiple testing corrections where relevant, and effect sizes/confidence intervals when appropriate)?
Are controls adequate and properly described (positive/negative controls, vehicle controls, reference standards)?
Are experimental materials clearly specified (e.g., cell line authentication/contamination status, reagents, antibodies, botanical material identification, compound characterization, formulation details)?
Are relevant reporting standards followed where applicable (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal studies)?
Ethics compliance:
- For human studies: is ethics committee approval stated and is informed consent documented, where applicable, consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki?
- For animal studies: is compliance stated with Directive 2010/63/EU and relevant national regulations?
Identify methodological limitations that materially affect interpretation and indicate whether they are adequately addressed.

(D) Results and data presentation

Are the data internally consistent and presented clearly?
Do figures/tables accurately represent the data and include appropriate annotations (n, replicates, error bars, statistical tests)?
Are raw data availability statements, supplementary materials, or repositories sufficient when needed to support transparency?
Do the results support each major claim and the stated conclusions?
Are any key analyses missing (e.g., validation experiments, sensitivity analyses, appropriate subgroup analyses)?

(E) Reporting quality and language

Is the manuscript written clearly and unambiguously in English?
Does the language impede scientific interpretation (terminology, grammar, readability)?
Recommend language editing only when clarity is substantially affected.

Reviewer responsibilities and professional standards

Reviews must be objective, respectful, and focused on the science. Personal criticism is unacceptable.
Reviewers should provide reasoned justification for criticisms and recommendations, enabling authors to understand the basis of the evaluation.
If reviewers identify missing citations that are important for context or interpretation, they should recommend them. Citation suggestions should be relevant and necessary, not excessive.
If substantial similarity, redundant publication, image manipulation concerns, plagiarism, fabricated data signals, or other integrity issues are suspected, reviewers should confidentially alert the editor with a clear description of the concern.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and associated materials under review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with others. If consultation with an additional expert is necessary, reviewers must:

obtain the editor’s permission in advance (or notify the editor promptly), and
disclose the identity and role of any individual consulted.

Information from the manuscript must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed prior to publication.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest (financial, professional, collaborative, institutional, or personal) that could compromise impartiality. Where a conflict exists that may affect objectivity, reviewers should decline the invitation to review.

Recommendations to the editor

Reviewers are typically asked to provide one of the following recommendations, supported by their comments:

Accept (rare at first round)
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject

Reviewers should indicate which changes are essential for validity versus those that are desirable but not critical.

Editorial decisions, revisions, and reconsideration

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, informed by reviewer reports and editorial assessment. When revisions are invited, authors are expected to address all substantive comments point-by-point. Manuscripts requiring major revision are commonly returned to reviewers for re-evaluation.

Appeals and complaints (principles)

FARMACIA manages appeals in line with recognized publication-ethics principles. Authors who believe an editorial decision was incorrect may submit an appeal with a detailed, evidence-based response to the decision rationale and reviewer comments. Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, may involve consultation with additional editorial advisors or external experts. Re-review is not guaranteed and is reserved for cases where a credible scientific or procedural concern is raised.