Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Therapeutics (JMCT) is committed to maintaining a fair, objective, transparent, and timely peer-review process. Peer review plays a fundamental role in ensuring the scientific quality, originality, accuracy, methodological rigor, and integrity of published research. Every manuscript submitted to JMCT is evaluated according to the journal's editorial standards, scientific scope, and ethical principles before a final publication decision is made.

JMCT employs a Single-Blind Peer Review model, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors, while reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the editorial process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office or an assigned Editor. During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for completeness, compliance with the Author Guidelines, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, scientific quality, originality, methodological appropriateness, and ethical considerations.

For manuscripts involving medicinal chemistry, drug discovery, computational drug design, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, toxicology, or therapeutics, the initial assessment may also consider the appropriateness of the experimental or computational methodology and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the reported evidence.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's minimum editorial or scientific requirements may be returned to the authors for technical revision or declined before external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are assigned to qualified and independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, publication record, methodological expertise, and absence of conflicts of interest.

The journal normally invites at least two independent reviewers to evaluate each manuscript. Additional reviewers may be invited whenever necessary depending on the subject, methodology, complexity, or concerns arising during the review process.

3. Single-Blind Peer Review

JMCT follows a Single-Blind Peer Review process. During review, reviewers have access to author information, while reviewer identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors unless explicitly agreed by the reviewer or otherwise required by the journal's peer-review policy.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful comments that assist both the authors and the editors in evaluating the manuscript.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, validity of experimental or computational approaches, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, statistical validity, interpretation of results, and overall contribution to medicinal chemistry, drug discovery, pharmacology, therapeutics, or related fields.

• Originality and novelty
• Scientific and therapeutic significance
• Methodological rigor and appropriateness
• Quality, reliability, and interpretation of data
• Validity of experimental or computational approaches
• Ethical compliance and research integrity
• Quality of writing, presentation, and organization
• Appropriateness and currency of references
• Relevance to the journal's aims and scope
• Whether conclusions are adequately supported by the reported evidence

For computational drug discovery manuscripts, reviewers may additionally evaluate the appropriateness and reproducibility of molecular docking, molecular dynamics, virtual screening, QSAR, pharmacophore modeling, ADME/ADMET prediction, molecular modeling, or other computational approaches, where applicable.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews fairly, objectively, confidentially, and within the agreed review period. They should declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation and should decline the invitation if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment.

Reviewers must not share, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in submitted manuscripts for personal, academic, professional, or commercial purposes. Reviewers should also notify the Editor of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, inappropriate authorship, or other ethical concerns identified during review.

6. Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on the reviewers' recommendations together with the independent assessment of the Handling Editor and the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer recommendations are carefully considered but do not automatically determine the final editorial decision.

The final decision is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editor responsible for the manuscript.

Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they should provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the Handling Editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions. Additional rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to ensure the scientific quality and integrity of the manuscript.

8. Reviewer Confidentiality

Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout the editorial process. The journal does not disclose reviewer names or review reports to authors unless all relevant parties explicitly agree or the journal adopts an alternative peer-review model in the future.

Authors and reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and must not attempt to improperly identify or contact reviewers regarding a manuscript under review.

9. Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office. Appeals should provide a clear scientific justification together with relevant supporting evidence and should directly address the reasons for disagreement with the decision.

Appeals are evaluated independently in accordance with the journal's Appeals & Complaints Policy. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance of the manuscript.

10. Policy Review and Updates

This Peer Review Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with developments in scholarly publishing, publication ethics, research integrity, and international best practices. The Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Therapeutics reserves the right to revise this policy when necessary. Updated versions become effective upon publication on the journal website unless otherwise stated.