Peer Review Process and Evaluation Policy

Drug Discovery and Development is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific quality, research integrity, ethical publishing, transparency, and editorial excellence. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a rigorous editorial evaluation and peer review process designed to ensure the publication of scientifically valid, original, methodologically sound, and impactful research in the fields of drug discovery, pharmaceutical sciences, medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, biotechnology, translational medicine, computational drug design, and therapeutic development.

The journal follows a fair, objective, confidential, and timely peer review system aimed at evaluating the originality, scientific merit, methodological rigour, ethical compliance, and relevance of submitted manuscripts. The editorial and peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally accepted ethical publishing standards and best editorial practices.

Upon submission, all manuscripts are initially examined by the Editorial Office to determine whether the submission complies with the journal’s technical and ethical requirements. During this stage, the editorial staff evaluates the completeness of submission files, adherence to author guidelines, structured abstracts and keywords, reference formatting, ethical approval statements, informed consent documentation where applicable, conflict of interest disclosures, funding information, plagiarism screening results, and overall language quality and scientific presentation. Manuscripts that do not meet the required standards may be returned to the authors for technical modifications before editorial assessment.

Following the preliminary technical evaluation, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor conducts an initial scientific screening of the manuscript. This editorial assessment focuses on the relevance of the study to the journal’s scope, originality and novelty of the research, scientific importance, methodological quality, statistical validity, ethical compliance, clarity of presentation, and potential contribution to drug discovery and therapeutic sciences. Manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication, lacking sufficient novelty, or falling outside the journal’s scope may be rejected at this stage without external peer review in order to allow authors to seek alternative publication venues without unnecessary delay.

The journal operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review process. This model is intended to promote impartiality, fairness, and objective scientific evaluation. Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening stage are typically assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers possessing relevant expertise in the subject area of the submission.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic qualifications, research expertise, publication record, prior peer review experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. The editorial office strives to ensure diversity, independence, fairness, and balanced scientific judgment during reviewer selection. Although authors may suggest potential reviewers during submission, the final selection of reviewers remains entirely at the discretion of the editorial team.

Reviewers are requested to critically evaluate manuscripts with respect to scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, reproducibility, statistical analysis, reliability and interpretation of data, relevance to the journal’s scope, organization and clarity of presentation, quality of figures and tables, adequacy of references, and language quality. Reviewers also assess compliance with ethical standards, including human and animal research ethics, clinical trial registration where applicable, data integrity, and the absence of plagiarism or scientific misconduct. Particular attention is given to whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the presented data and whether the study offers meaningful scientific significance or practical implications for the field.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers may recommend acceptance without revision, minor revision, major revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor after careful consideration of reviewer comments, scientific merit, ethical concerns, editorial priorities, and author revisions. In cases where reviewer opinions differ substantially, additional reviewers may be invited or further editorial assessment may be undertaken before a final decision is reached. All editorial decisions are considered final.

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer's comment. Revised submissions should clearly indicate all modifications made to the manuscript. In cases involving substantial revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from further consideration.

The journal maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review and editorial evaluation process. Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents, and editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, or unpublished data to unauthorized individuals. Unpublished information obtained during the review process must not be used for personal research or professional advantage.

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that may influence their objectivity, including financial relationships, institutional affiliations, collaborative associations, personal relationships, or competitive interests. Individuals with significant conflicts of interest are excluded from the review and editorial decision-making process. Authors are likewise required to disclose all relevant conflicts of interest and funding sources during manuscript submission.

The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical standards and follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Declaration of Helsinki, and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. The editorial office may request supporting documentation, including ethical approval certificates, patient consent forms, clinical trial registration details, raw data, and data availability statements whenever necessary.

All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using appropriate detection software before peer review. Manuscripts containing significant plagiarism, duplicate publication, unattributed material, image manipulation, fabricated data, or other forms of scientific misconduct may be rejected immediately. Serious ethical violations may additionally result in manuscript retraction, notification of institutional authorities, temporary submission bans, or reporting to relevant regulatory bodies.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification to the Editorial Office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, independent editorial advisors. Decisions reached following the appeal evaluation are considered final. The journal also addresses complaints relating to editorial handling, peer review conduct, publication ethics, and malpractice in a fair, transparent, and confidential manner.

The journal aims to provide efficient and timely editorial processing. Initial editorial screening is generally completed within 3–7 days of submission, while the peer review process typically requires 2–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. Revised manuscripts are usually evaluated within 1–3 weeks, and final editorial decisions are generally communicated within 1–2 weeks following completion of peer review.

Accepted manuscripts proceed through copyediting, technical editing, proof preparation, author proof correction, and final publication. Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing proofs and responding promptly to editorial queries to ensure accuracy and timely publication.

The journal is committed to preserving the integrity and reliability of the scientific record. Where necessary, the journal may publish corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions in accordance with COPE recommendations and established ethical publishing practices.

Drug Discovery and Development strongly supports responsible scientific communication, reproducibility, transparency, ethical research conduct, and integrity in scholarly publishing. The journal encourages high-quality interdisciplinary research that advances innovation in drug discovery and therapeutic sciences while upholding the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the scientific literature.