1. Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

TPB operates a double-blind peer-review process, whereby the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review, ensuring independence of evaluation and preventing bias related to author identity, academic reputation, institutional affiliation, nationality, or gender. This model supports fairness, consistency, and credibility in editorial decision-making. All manuscripts submitted to TPB are reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field, with a typical turnaround of about 2 weeks per round, without compromising review quality or depth. Final publication decisions are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers' reports, editorial judgment, and the journal's scope and ethical standards.

2. Reviewer Selection and Author Suggestions

Before submitting a manuscript to TPB, authors are required to suggest two potential reviewers. Suggested reviewers must:

• Possess relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area.
• Be independent of the authors and free from conflicts of interest.
• Not be from the same institution as any of the authors.

The provision of reviewer suggestions does not guarantee their selection. TPB maintains full editorial independence in appointing reviewers, in accordance with Web of Science requirements.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Standards

Reviewers invited by TPB agree to comply with the following:

• Review critically but constructively, preparing detailed, evidence-based comments to help authors improve their work.
• Review multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary.
• Provide all required information within established deadlines.
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance.
• Declare any potential conflicts of interest to the editor.
• Report possible research misconduct.
• Suggest alternative reviewers if unable to review for any reason.
• Treat the manuscript as strictly confidential.
• Not use the work described in the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
• Not communicate directly with authors at any stage of the review.
• Not identify themselves to the authors.
• Not delegate the assigned manuscript to another reviewer without editorial approval.
• Inform the editor if the manuscript is known to be under consideration elsewhere.
• Write review reports in English only.
• When requested, contribute an editorial commentary related to the reviewed manuscript.

These principles are consistent with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, which TPB follows as part of its commitment to ethical publishing.

4. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

• Novelty and originality of the research.
• Scientific reliability and methodological rigor.
• Valuable contribution to science and the existing field of study.
• Ethical compliance and integrity of the research.
• Structure of the article and relevance to author guidelines.
• Accuracy and relevance of references.
• Grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
• Absence of scientific misconduct.

5. Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Review Process

TPB requires reviewers and editors to refrain from uploading manuscript content to generative AI tools, in order to protect author confidentiality and data integrity. Any use of AI-assisted tools in the editorial or review workflow must be disclosed to the editorial office in advance and does not replace the reviewer's own expert judgment.

6. Recognition of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the scholarly quality and reputation of Trends in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology (TPB). TPB formally acknowledges the contribution of reviewers who participate in the peer-review process, in line with Web of Science Core Collection practices, while fully preserving reviewer anonymity.