Reviewer Instructions

 

 

Accessing the Manuscript for Review

When you are invited to review, you will receive instructions on how to access the manuscript using Editorial Manager. After reviewing the manuscript, log in to Editorial Manager to answer questions about the manuscript and compose and submit your review. While we can accept 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 Microsoft Word’s track changes feature. If you have any questions or need assistance using AJPE’s online review system, please contact the Editorial Office at ajpe@ajpe.org.

Reviewer Guidelines

Conscientious peer review of manuscripts is a time-consuming task but is essential to ensure high-quality content for the Journal. When reviewing a manuscript, keep in mind that the purpose of the Journal is to document and improve the quality of pharmaceutical education. To be published, a manuscript must provide useful data or information for the national and 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.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

Key points to consider:

  • Is the topic appropriate for the Journal?
  • Is the information of significant interest to the Journal 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?
  • Do the data represent an adequate population and is a valid statistical justification included to support the conclusion?
  • 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 comprehension of the text?
  • Is information in the tables and figures redundant?
  • Are the references cited appropriately to support the manuscript? Did the authors cite appropriate literature from other health and/or pedagogic disciplines and sources?
  • Should the manuscript be shortened?

After careful consideration, provide one of the following recommendations to the Editor regarding publication:

  • Highly recommend: This paper adds to the literature in a substantial way and only requires minor revisions to grammar, syntax, or formatting (may not be required to be sent back to author).  
  • Recommend: This paper contributes to the literature and should be published. There are only minor issues that need to be addressed, and the author may or may not need to address them. 
  • Recommend with minor revision (Revise minor): There are minor issues with the paper that require the author to address prior to publication. However, these issues are not able to be dealt with by minor copy editing alone (eg, reference issues, moving paragraphs from the introduction to the discussion).  
  • Recommend with significant revision (Revise major): There are substantive issues with the paper that require considerable work on the part of the author to examine and address (but it is salvageable). After resubmission, this paper will likely require another round of peer review. 
  • Reject: This paper does not contribute to the literature and should not be published, or the writing quality is so poor that it is impossible to evaluate the paper without a substantial rewrite. Other reasons to recommend “Reject” include inappropriate methods, poor execution of study design, or lack of relevance of the results. A “reject” for poor writing alone should be rare. Please reach out to the assigned editor for clarification and help if necessary.

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.

Additional Resources:

Malcom D. It's time we fix the peer review system. Am J Pharm Educ. 2018;82(5):7144.

Schlesselman L. Doing your part to advance pharmacy education scholarship. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016;80(9):145.

Malcom D, Suzuki M. How to provide a high quality peer review for journals. Webinar. July 29, 2020