All papers will be submitted online at the journal website, https://jmpas.com/menuscript. Following submission, a unique manuscript number is generated, and all subsequent communication with the author, reviewer, and editorial staff is based on this number.

Manuscripts for the "International Journal of Medical Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences" (IJMPHS) are subject to a two-part peer review procedure. Initially, the submitted manuscript will be reviewed by editorial team members, who will decide whether or not to send the article to peer review based on the quality of the research, relevance to the journal's readership, contribution to the existing literature, writing quality, and timeliness of the work. Manuscripts that are determined to be most likely to meet editorial format standards are sent for formal evaluation, often by two or three reviewers based on their areas of expertise. Manuscripts that the editors determine to be of insufficient quality or otherwise inappropriate for the research community benefit are rejected without external review.

The second step in the review process is a double-blind peer review, in which the reviewers do not know who the authors are, and the writers do not know who the reviewers are. Peer reviewers also fill out a reviewer form and are asked to suggest a publication based on relevance, originality, research quality, writing quality, and bias influence. Based on the peer-review recommendations, the editorial team makes the final decision about publication.

Sometimes particular consideration is required (for example, a new strategy for community benefit or a creative technology). The editors then create a note based on the professional reviewers' advice, from among the choices such as:

1. Accept, with or without editorial revisions.
2. Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific comments before a final acceptance.
3. Reject, but encourage the authors that further necessary work might justify respective research for resubmission.
4. Reject, typically based on special interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance, or major technical and/or quality problems.

Reviewers are free to advocate a specific course of action, but they should take in mind that other reviewers in a given subject area may have differing technical skills and/or views, and the editors may be required to make a judgment based on logical reality.

It should be emphasized that articles submitted by the editorial team, associate editors, board members, and guest editor of the IJMPHS will be peer reviewed in the same way that other authors are, and the editorial management will play no role in the review or decision.

All submitted articles are subjected to a peer review procedure; authors are given the chance to participate in this process before their manuscript is accepted. Although we expect that the authors will benefit from the detailed and relevant feedback provided by the peer reviewers. It is important to note that these files with comments will not contain all of the information considered in the editorial decision-making process, such as the discussion to recommend a specific course of action; however, they should keep in mind that other reviewers in a particular subject area may have different technical expertise and/or perceptions, and the editors may be required to make a decision based on logical truth.

It should be emphasized that articles submitted by the editorial team, associate editors, board members, and guest editor of the IJMPHS will be peer reviewed in the same way that other authors are, and the editorial management will play no role in the review or decision.

Transparent peer review between the editorial management and any reviewers or authors who provide confidential feedback to the editorial team.

The International Journal of Medical Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences (IJMPHS) is committed to making rapid editorial decisions (4 weeks for the first decision) and review processes (8 weeks for the second decision) and, ultimately, 12 weeks for publication (for accepted manuscripts), and we believe that an efficient peer review process benefits both our authors and the scientific community. As a result, we request that relevant reviewers react as soon as feasible or within the agreed-upon timeline. If reviewers foresee a longer delay than expected, we ask that they notify us so that we can keep the authors informed and take appropriate measures, such as appointing another reviewer.