• Author contributions and relevance in the field, excellent in technical writing skills, and quality of the study design
• Provides insight into an important issue for example, by explaining a wide variance when numbers are spread out from the mean or expected value, or by shedding light on an unsolved problem that affects a lot of people
• The insight is useful to people who make decisions, particularly long-term organizational decisions or, in our particular field, family decisions
• The insight is used to develop a new framework or a new theory or advancement of an existing one
• The insight stimulates new, important questions
• The methods used to explore the issue are appropriate (for example, collection of data and interpreting of data)
• The methods used are applied rigorously and explain why and how the data support the conclusions
• Interconnecting the previous work in the relevant field or from inter-disciplinary fields are made to the article's interpretations clearer.
The article tells a good story: Well written and easy to understand, the arguments are logical and not internally contradictory
• Does not fall within the Aims and Scope: This is a common mistake. The emphasis of the manuscript is not in the scope of the journal and/or the guidelines of the targeted journal are not followed.
• Fails the technical screening (Poor English grammar, style, and syntax): The article contains elements that are suspected to be plagiarized. The article is currently under review process at another journal. The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations, keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures. The English is not proficient for the peer review process; the figures are not complete or are not clear enough to read. References are incomplete or very old.
• Insufficient/Incomplete data: It is important to clearly define and appropriately frame the studys question. The article contains observations but is not a full study. It discusses findings in relation to some of the work in the field but ignores other important work.
• Methods/Analysis data is seen to be defective: Details are insufficient to repeat the results. The design of study, instruments used, and procedures followed should clear. But in some cases it could be better to put too much information into the methods section rather than to put too little. The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
• Over interpretation of results: Some reviewers have indicated that a clear and honest approach to the interpretation of the results is likely to increase the chances of a manuscript to be accepted. Identify possible partial and stunning variables, both during the preliminary phase of the study and the elucidation of the results. Describe the experimental results briefly.
• Incomprehensible/Unsatisfactory data: Make tables and graphs easy to understand. Some editors start looking quickly at the tables, graphs, and figures to determine if the manuscript is worth considering. The language, structure, or figures are very poor that the merit can't be analyzed. Have a native English speaker to read and assess the quality of the paper.
• Conclusions not supported by data: Make sure your conclusions are not overemphasized, are supported, and answer the studys query. Make sure to contribute alternative clarification, and do not simply restate the results. The conclusions should not ignore large portions of the literature.
• Simply a small extension of a different paper, inaccurate literature: Be sure to conduct a complete literature search and only list references relevant to the study. Findings are incremental and do not advance the field. The work is clearly but larger part of a study is chopped to make possible number of articles.
• Author unwilling to revise the manuscript to address reviewers suggestions: Taking the reviewers suggestions into account, revising your manuscript will always result in a better manuscript for publishing. If the editor suggests evaluating a revision, it means the manuscript may be publishable if the reviewers concerns could be addressed satisfactorily.
Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs: Open Access received 400 citations as per Google Scholar report