Editorial Policy ↑

We at the Pharmacognosy Reviews are committed to meeting and maintaining ethical standards throughout the publication. For these reasons, the journal closely follows industry associations like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), which define standards and provide guidance.
Authors reporting in vivo animal experiments and clinical trials are encouraged to refer to the ARRIVE guidelines and the CONSORT statement, respectively.

Peer Review Policy ↑

A peer review process is applied to articles or information submitted exclusively to the Pharmacognosy Reviews. Manuscripts that do not meet scientific standards will not be reviewed. Referees are asked for advice on the paper’s scientific merit as well as its appeal to a broad pharmaceutical research audience. Editors usually give reviewers 21 days to complete the review process. While editors always strive for a quick turnaround, this is not always possible. After the paper has been sent to the referees, editors will contact them with weekly reminders about their due dates. Once all the reviews have been completed in-house, the Editor handling the manuscript will most likely make a decision within a day or two. The Editor will then inform the corresponding author of his or her decision. Reviewers invest valuable time in the belief that they are making a valuable contribution to the scientific process by reviewing articles submitted to the Pharmacognosy Reviews online and digitally. Communication at Pharmacognosy Reviews occurs only via email.

Submission Guidelines ↑

A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted to the Pharmacognosy Reviews alone at that point in time and has not been published anywhere, simultaneously submitted, or already accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal expects that the authors will authorize one of them to correspond with the journal on all matters related to the manuscript. All manuscripts received are duly acknowledged. On submission, editors review all submitted manuscripts initially to ensure they are suitable for formal review. Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws, or lack of a significant message are rejected before proceeding for formal peer-review. Manuscripts that are unlikely to be of interest to the Pharmacognosy Reviews readers are also liable to be rejected at this stage itself.

Manuscripts found suitable for publication in the Pharmacognosy Reviews are sent to two or more expert reviewers. During submission, the contributor is requested to provide names of two or three qualified reviewers who have had experience in the subject of the submitted manuscript, but this is not mandatory. The reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institutes as the contributor/s. However, the selection of these reviewers is at the sole discretion of the editor. The journal follows a double-blind review process, wherein the reviewers and authors are unaware of each other’s identities. Every manuscript is also assigned to a member of the editorial team, who, based on the comments from the reviewers, takes a final decision on the manuscript. The comments and suggestions (acceptance/ rejection/ amendments in the manuscript) received from reviewers are conveyed to the corresponding author. If required, the author is requested to provide a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments and submit a revised version of the manuscript. This process is repeated till reviewers and editors are satisfied with the manuscript.

Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy-edited for grammar, punctuation, print style, and format. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author. The corresponding author is expected to return the corrected proofs within three days. It may not be possible to incorporate corrections received after that period. The whole process of submission of the manuscript to the final decision and sending and receiving proofs is completed online. To achieve faster and greater dissemination of knowledge and information, the journal publishes articles online as ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately upon acceptance.

Authorship criteria

Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to each of the three components mentioned below:

1. Concept and design of study or acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or data collection does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing of the manuscript. Once submitted the order cannot be changed without the written consent of all the contributors. The journal prescribes a maximum number of authors for manuscripts depending upon the type of manuscript, its scope and the number of institutions involved (vide infra). The authors should provide a justification if the number of authors exceeds these limits.

Conflicts of Interest/ Competing Interests

All authors must disclose any and all conflicts of interest they may have with the publication of the manuscript or an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose conflicts of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript.

Authors may suggest 2–3 potential reviewers (not mandatory); however final reviewer selection rests with the editors. The journal follows a double-blind review process.

Formatting Guidelines ↑

• Download Formatting Guidelines (PDF)
• Contributors Agreement Form: The contributors agreement form https://caform.mstm.app has to be submitted in original with the details of all the contributors within two weeks of submission.
  

Typical word limits: Review Articles ~3500 words; Commentaries ≤700 words. Abstracts should be structured (background, purpose, methods, results, conclusion) and limited to 250–300 words.

Manuscripts should conform to ICMJE recommendations and be written in English. Figures should be high resolution (≥350 dpi) and submitted in JPEG/TIFF/PNG/EPS formats as appropriate. Tables should be self-explanatory and fit the journal layout.

Reference List: Author/Authors ↑

In APA style, the reference list should be arranged alphabetically by the last name of the first author, rather than by order of appearance in the text. In-text citations are identified using the author's last name and publication year; page numbers are included only when directly quoting. APA style does not use superscript numerals for citations.

All references cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and every entry in the reference list must be cited in the text. Avoid using abstracts as references unless they are the only available source. Manuscripts that are submitted but not yet accepted for publication should be cited as "unpublished manuscripts" and should only be included in the text, not the reference list. Personal communications should be cited only in the text and should include the communicator's name and the exact date of communication.

Journal titles should be written in full (not abbreviated), with the journal name and volume number in italics. Follow APA formatting rules for capitalization, punctuation, and DOI presentation.

References

In-text citation Examples

JOURNAL REFERENCES [APA Style]

Authors should strictly follow the APA (American Psychological Association) citation style.

In-text citation:

In APA style, in-text citations typically include the author's last name and the publication year, enclosed in parentheses. If you are directly quoting, you should also include the page number.

• Author(s) in Sentence: Alonso-Castro et al. (2011) state that for several years, plants have been considered a primary source for the development of new cancer drugs, since approximately 60% of the chemotherapeutic agents currently used originate from natural sources.
• Author(s) in Parentheses: For several years, plants have been considered a primary source in the search for new cancer drugs, since approximately 60% of the chemotherapeutic agents currently in use originate from natural sources (Alonso-Castro et al., 2011).
• Multiple Authors: For sources with three or more authors, use et al. after the first author's name: (Smith et al., 2018).

Reference List:

References should be listed alphabetically by the author's last name.

• Journal Article: Alonso-Castro, A. J., Villarreal, M., Salazar-Olivo, L. A., Gómez-Sánchez, M., Domínguez, F., & García-Carranca, A. (2011). Mexican medicinal plants used for cancer treatment: Pharmacological, phytochemical and ethnobotanical studies. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 133(3), 945–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2010.11.055
• Book: Smith, A. B. (2018). The Science of Nature. Publisher.

APA style does not use a superscript number in the text for citations. Instead, it relies on the author's last name and publication year. When using APA style, make sure to format your entire manuscript, including the reference list, according to APA guidelines.

Contact Information ↑

Any correspondence, queries or additional requests for information on the Manuscript Submission process should be sent to the Pharmacognosy Reviews editorial office as follows:

Acknowledgements ↑

All electronic submissions and communications are acknowledged electronically upon receipt. Authors are requested to follow the journal's guidelines strictly to avoid delays.