European Pharmaceutical Journal

The European Pharmaceutical Journal (formerly Acta Facultatis Pharmaceuticae Universitatis Comenianae) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with more than 50 years of publishing history, dedicated to advancing pharmaceutical sciences and supporting the development of young and emerging researchers.

Peer review is central to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scientific publishing. The Journal deeply values the time, expertise, and commitment of its reviewers, whose constructive evaluations contribute directly to improving published research and supporting scientific progress.

The Journal follows internationally recognized best practices in publication ethics, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the scientific quality, validity, and relevance of manuscripts submitted to the Journal. By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to provide an independent, objective, and timely evaluation based on their expertise.

Reviewers should only accept assignments for manuscripts within their area of competence and when they are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

2. Peer Review Process

The Journal operates a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewers initially receive only the manuscript title and abstract to determine suitability and availability. Upon acceptance, full manuscript access is granted.

Reviewer identities remain confidential throughout and after the review process.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations

Assess originality, scientific quality, methodology, and relevance

Identify strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript

Support critiques with clear reasoning and, where appropriate, references

Distinguish between major and minor concerns

Ensure recommendations align with the content of the review report

Maintain confidentiality at all times

Reviews should be written in a professional tone and be suitable for communication to authors without substantial modification.

4. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential documents. Reviewers must not:

Share or discuss manuscripts with others without editorial permission

Use manuscript content for personal, academic, or commercial advantage

Retain or distribute unpublished material outside the peer review process

Confidentiality obligations apply to all versions of the manuscript, supplementary materials, correspondence, and review reports.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Peer review requires independent expert judgment, critical thinking, and accountability. For this reason:

Reviewers must not use generative artificial intelligence (genAI) tools to generate, draft, or substantially assist peer review reports

Manuscripts and related materials must not be uploaded to public or third-party AI platforms

AI tools must not be used in any way that compromises confidentiality or intellectual property

Reviewers remain fully responsible and accountable for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their reviews.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could affect impartiality. These may include:

Financial or commercial interests

Academic competition or collaboration

Intellectual or ideological considerations

If a conflict exists or emerges during review, the reviewer should inform the Editor immediately.

7. Ethical Considerations and Misconduct

Reviewers should alert the Editor to any concerns regarding research integrity or publication ethics, including:

Plagiarism or redundant publication

Data fabrication or falsification

Image manipulation

Ethical issues involving human or animal research

Inappropriate authorship practices

Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Suspected undisclosed use of generative AI in manuscript preparation

Reviewers should not conduct independent investigations.

8. Preparing a Review

Reviews should be:

Clear, structured, and constructive

Supported by scientific reasoning or evidence

Focused on the manuscript’s content, not the authors personally

Reviewers are encouraged to:

Provide specific comments for improvement

Identify missing analyses or insufficient evidence

Suggest relevant literature when appropriate

Comment on clarity, structure, and scientific presentation

Separate major concerns from minor revisions

Recommendations (accept, revise, reject) must be consistent with the written comments.

Rejection decisions should generally be based on substantial scientific or methodological weaknesses rather than language, formatting, or minor technical issues.

9. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to invitations, whether accepting or declining.

Once a review is accepted, it should be completed within the agreed timeframe.

If circumstances prevent timely completion, the Journal should be informed as soon as possible.

If new information arises after submission of a review that may affect the assessment, the reviewer should notify the Editor promptly.

10. Partial Reviews

If a reviewer evaluates only specific parts of a manuscript, this should be clearly indicated in the review report.

11. Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers are encouraged, where possible, to evaluate revised or resubmitted versions of manuscripts they have previously reviewed, to ensure continuity and consistency in the evaluation process.

12. Editorial Transparency

In exceptional cases, an Editor may contribute a review when additional expertise is required or when external reviewers are unavailable. Such contributions must be clearly identified as editorial input and must never be presented as anonymous external peer review.

13. Appreciation