Peer Review Policy

Trends in Natural Products Research (TNPR) Peer Review Policy

  1. Introduction: Peer review is integral to ensuring the quality and integrity of scientific research. Trends in Natural Products Research (TNPR) upholds the highest standards of peer review in line with international best practices. Central to maintaining the integrity and excellence of the journal is a rigorous peer review process. This policy outlines the peer review process followed by TNPR to maintain the quality and credibility of published articles.
  2. Objectives:

The peer review process of TNPR aims to:

  • Ensure the quality and originality of published research.
  • Provide constructive feedback to authors to enhance the quality of their manuscripts.
  • Uphold ethical standards and prevent publication of fraudulent or unethical research.
  • Maintain the reputation and credibility of TNPR within the scientific community.
  1. Initial Editorial Screening:

Upon receiving an original article, one of the Associate Editors will conduct a preliminary evaluation to ensure it meets the journal’s format as per the Instructions to Authors and aligns with the aims and scope of the journal. Additionally, a plagiarism check is performed. Only manuscripts passing this preliminary screening will proceed to peer review.

  1. Double-Blind Peer Review:

All manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer-review process to maintain impartiality and objectivity. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process to ensure the highest quality of assessment.

  1. Selection of Reviewers:

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and experience in the relevant field of natural products research. They should possess a Ph.D. or equivalent qualification and have a track record of publications in reputable journals. TNPR prioritizes diversity in its pool of reviewers to ensure a broad range of perspectives and expertise.

The Article Handling Editor selects three potential reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers must not have co-authored publications with the author(s) and should not be affiliated with the same institution. This ensures independence and fairness in the evaluation process.

  1. Review Process:

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on criteria such as originality, significance, methodology, interpretation of results, and adherence to ethical standards. They provide detailed feedback and recommendations for improvement, which are forwarded to the authors.

Authors are typically given a reasonable timeframe to address reviewers’ comments and revise their manuscript accordingly. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review if necessary.

  1. Review Timeline:

Reviewers are requested to complete their assessments within two weeks. However, extensions may be granted upon request to ensure thorough evaluation.

  1. Reviewer Recommendations:

Authors are expected to adhere to ethical standards in their research and manuscript preparation. Plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of scientific misconduct are not tolerated and may result in rejection or retraction of the manuscript.

Reviewers can make one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept manuscript without any change
  • Accept after minor revision
  • Accept after major revision
  • Reject manuscript
  1. Editorial Recommendations:

After receiving all reviewer reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Revision
  • Reject
  1. Revision Process: If revisions are required, authors are given a maximum of two weeks for minor revisions and up to four weeks for major revisions. Authors may revise their manuscript more than once depending on the feedback provided by reviewers and Editors to ensure the quality of the article before final acceptance.
  2. Appeals Process: Authors who disagree with the editorial decision or review process may appeal by providing a detailed rationale for their concerns. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member, and a decision is made based on the merits of the appeal.
  3. Continuous Improvement:TNPR is committed to continuously improving its peer review process to ensure fairness, transparency, and efficiency. Feedback from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members is welcomed and used to refine and optimize the review process.
  4. Language and Style:

Formal revision may be requested if the language or style of the manuscript is sub-standard. This is to ensure clarity and readability for readers.

  1. 1 Confidentiality and Ethics:

TNPR upholds strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and refrain from disclosing any information about the review process.

  1. Conclusion:

TNPR is committed to maintaining a rigorous and fair peer review process to uphold the quality and integrity of published articles. Through transparent and constructive feedback, we aim to support authors in enhancing the quality of their research and contribute to the advancement of natural products research.