Article types

JPBS considers several categories of scholarly contribution that advance pharmaceutical science and its connection with biological and therapeutic performance. Each submission is evaluated for scientific quality, originality, methodological rigour, relevance to the journal’s scope, and potential contribution to the field.

The article type does not determine the level of scientific scrutiny. JPBS does not accept manuscripts solely because they are technically sound if they lack sufficient scientific significance, methodological rigour, originality, pharmaceutical relevance or a clear contribution to the field.

1. Original Research

   Peer reviewed

   A novel, hypothesis-driven or scientifically justified experimental, computational, preclinical or translational study. The manuscript should provide enough methodological detail for evaluation and reproducibility, and a coherent body of evidence for the conclusions. JPBS particularly values studies that demonstrate a meaningful relationship among pharmaceutical design, formulation characteristics, biological performance and therapeutic relevance.

   Abstract: Structured abstract preferred. · Typically 3,000–8,000 words, excluding references.

2. Review Article

   Peer reviewed

   An authoritative, balanced and critical synthesis of an established or rapidly developing area of pharmaceutical science. A review should do more than summarise published studies: it should identify major advances and unresolved questions, compare and evaluate existing evidence, discuss methodological strengths and limitations, and offer a scientifically supported perspective on future work. Focused mini-reviews of emerging topics are considered under this type.

   Abstract: Unstructured or structured. · Typically 4,000–8,000 words.

3. Short Communication

   Peer reviewed

   A concise, original and scientifically important finding that does not require the full length of a research article: a focused experimental result, a sufficiently validated preliminary observation, a new pharmaceutical technology or method, or a clearly defined finding of immediate relevance. A short communication must contain enough evidence for its principal conclusions and must not be used to divide a substantially complete study into smaller publications.

   Abstract: Unstructured abstract. · Typically up to 2,000 words.

4. Case Report

   Peer reviewed

   An unusual, novel, educational or clinically important observation involving an individual patient, particularly where the pharmaceutical, formulation or therapeutic lesson is clear. Rarity alone is not sufficient. Consent for publication is required when the person could reasonably be identified. Not a vehicle for untested treatment claims.

   Abstract: Unstructured abstract. · Typically up to 1,500 words.

5. Perspective

   Peer reviewed

   A forward-looking, expert analysis of important developments, challenges, opportunities or emerging directions in pharmaceutical science. Unlike a conventional review, a perspective may present a clearly articulated expert viewpoint, provided the arguments are supported by appropriate scientific evidence. Perspectives may be invited or submitted.

   Abstract: Unstructured abstract. · Typically 2,000–4,000 words.

6. Commentary

   Peer reviewed

   A concise, evidence-based scholarly discussion of an important issue, development, controversy or methodological question in the pharmaceutical sciences. A commentary should provide a clear argument or interpretation rather than a literature summary.

   Abstract: None, or a short unstructured abstract. · Typically up to 1,500 words.

7. Editorial

   Commissioned

   The editorial position or perspective of the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board or invited experts on a significant scientific, methodological, ethical or publishing issue. Editorials may introduce special issues or thematic collections. They are generally commissioned; unsolicited editorials are not a submission route.

   Abstract: None.