Instructions for Reviewers

Accessing the Manuscript for Review

When you are invited to review, you will receive instructions on how to access the manuscript using AJPE’s Editorial Manager site at http://ajpe.edmgr.com .  When you have reviewed the manuscript, you will log in to the site to answer questions about the manuscript and compose and submit your review.  Although we can accept reviewer comments inserted in the text of the paper, these comments should be in addition to the standardized online review.  Changes and suggestions inserted in the text of the manuscript should be made using bold font or Word’s track changes feature.  The Comments feature in Word should not be used since the document will be faxed to the author.  If you have any questions or need assistance using AJPE’s online review system, please contact the Editorial Office at ajpe@cop.sc.edu

Reviewer Guidelines

Conscientious peer review of manuscripts is usually a time consuming task but is essential to assure high quality content for the Journal. When reviewing a manuscript, keep in mind that the purposes of the Journal are to document and improve the quality of pharmaceutical education. To be published, a manuscript must provide useful data or information for the national / international audience of the Journal. If a manuscript has only local relevance, its usefulness to the general audiences of the Journal is limited.

Comments should be as complete and detailed as possible and contain clear opinions about strengths, weaknesses, relevance, and importance to the field. Specific comments that cite manuscript sections, pages, paragraphs, or lines are most helpful. Reviewers should consider themselves as mentors of the author(s). Comments should be constructive and suggestions should be offered to enhance the manuscript.

• Is the topic of the manuscript appropriate for the Journal?
• Is the information of significant interest to the readers?
• Is the title accurate and sufficiently descriptive of the content?
• Is the purpose or objective clearly stated?
• Are the methods appropriate and scientifically sound?
• If a manuscript is based on data, do the data represent an adequate population and is a valid statistical justification included to support the conclusions?
• If the manuscript is descriptive of educational theory, content, or processes, is the information new to the majority of Journal readers?
• If the manuscript describes a new laboratory or classroom demonstration, or a novel method of instruction, does it include examples for teaching purposes?
• Are appropriate statistical tests used?
• Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?
• Are the tables and figures well designed and add to understanding of the text?
• Is information in the tables and figures redundant?
• Are the references cited the most appropriate to support the manuscript?
• Should the manuscript be shortened?

After careful consideration, the reviewer should provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor regarding publication:
• Highly recommended – for high quality manuscripts of high interest to most readers
• Recommended – for manuscripts of acceptable quality that are of interest to most readers.  For either of the above, indicate if the recommendation is unconditional or conditional upon modifications by the author.
• Not recommended (rejected) – for manuscripts of low quality or of low interest to readers

  Reviewers should not:

• Contact authors to discuss a manuscript.
• Reveal, cite, or in any way disclose information about a manuscript prior to publication.
• Agree to review a manuscript if there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Potential conflicts can be discussed with the Editor.
• Provide specific comments on grammar, spelling, or style.

It is permissible to request the assistance of colleagues to review a manuscript. The names of the additional reviewers should be provided to the Editor.