Nexus of Pathophysiology and Therapeutics (NPT) is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing research in pathophysiology, biomedical sciences, pharmacology, and therapeutics, with a focus on disease mechanisms and clinical applications.
Nexus of Pathophysiology and Therapeutics (NPT) is committed to a rigorous, transparent, fair, and timely peer-review process designed to ensure high standards of scientific quality, methodological integrity, and biomedical relevance.
NPT evaluates research within its defined scope, including pathophysiology and disease biology, clinical and translational research, diagnostics and biomarkers, pharmacology and therapeutics, immunology and inflammation, infectious diseases, toxicology and drug safety, natural products and therapeutic modulation, and related biomedical fields.
The journal seeks to publish scientifically rigorous research that advances understanding of disease mechanisms, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, treatment, or therapeutic development.
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office to determine their suitability for further consideration. This assessment considers:
Scope Alignment: Relevance to the scientific, biomedical, diagnostic, pharmacological, therapeutic, or translational scope of NPT.
Scientific and Methodological Suitability: Whether the manuscript addresses a clearly defined scientific question and uses an appropriate study design and methodology.
Ethical Compliance: Compliance with applicable research ethics requirements and the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Reporting and Structural Quality: Compliance with basic submission requirements, appropriate manuscript organization, adequate reporting, and acceptable language quality.
Originality and Integrity: Appropriate similarity/plagiarism screening and assessment of potential concerns regarding research or publication integrity.
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic scope, scientific, ethical, structural, or integrity requirements may be rejected at the editorial screening stage without external peer review.
NPT uses a double-blind peer-review system. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer-review process, where practicable.
Manuscripts are prepared for anonymous review by removing identifying information where practicable. Authors and reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality throughout the process.
The peer-review process is designed to provide an independent assessment of the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and validity of submitted work.
Each manuscript considered suitable for external review is assigned to an appropriate handling editor and, where applicable, a Section Editor with relevant subject expertise.
Manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate scientific or methodological expertise.
Reviewers are selected according to the subject matter and methodology of the manuscript, while considering:
Relevant scientific and methodological expertise;
Independence from the authors and their institutions;
Absence of relevant conflicts of interest;
Ability to provide an objective and timely assessment; and
Appropriate expertise for specialized methods or analyses when required.
Additional reviewers or specialist assessors may be invited when a manuscript involves specialized methodologies, including:
Clinical or translational study designs;
Diagnostic and biomarker evaluation;
Advanced experimental or mechanistic approaches;
Complex statistical analyses;
Bioinformatics, multi-omics, or computational methods;
Toxicological or drug-safety assessment; or
Natural products and therapeutic modulation.
NPT aims to provide an efficient and predictable editorial process while maintaining rigorous scientific assessment.
Initial Editorial Assessment: Approximately 1–2 weeks.
First Full Peer-Review Round: Approximately 5–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for specialized expertise.
These are target timeframes rather than guaranteed deadlines. Actual processing times may vary because of reviewer availability, revision requirements, methodological complexity, ethical considerations, or other editorial circumstances.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to their study design, scientific objectives, and methodological characteristics.
Reviewers consider:
Scientific Significance: Does the study address a meaningful biomedical, clinical, diagnostic, pharmacological, therapeutic, or disease-related question?
Methodological Rigor: Is the study design appropriate, sufficiently controlled, scientifically sound, and adequately described?
Validity of Results: Are the data reliable, appropriately analyzed, and clearly presented?
Originality and Contribution: Does the study provide novel, useful, or scientifically relevant knowledge?
Interpretation and Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the presented evidence and appropriate to the study design?
Relevance: Does the work contribute to understanding disease mechanisms, diagnosis, prognosis, prevention, treatment, therapeutic development, or related biomedical applications?
Transparency and Reproducibility: Are the methods, analyses, and relevant supporting information reported sufficiently to allow appropriate evaluation and, where applicable, replication?
Evaluation is tailored to the methodology and objectives of each study.
Clinical and Translational Studies: Study design, participant selection, clinical relevance, outcome measures, statistical methodology, and translational significance.
Diagnostic and Biomarker Studies: Biomarker validity, diagnostic or prognostic performance, appropriate comparators, analytical methodology, and potential clinical utility.
Pathophysiology and Disease Biology Studies: Biological rationale, experimental models, mechanistic evidence, appropriate controls, and relevance to disease development or progression.
Pharmacological and Therapeutic Studies: Intervention design, dosing or treatment strategy, appropriate controls or comparators, efficacy, safety, pharmacological rationale, and interpretation of therapeutic outcomes.
Immunological, Inflammatory, and Infectious Disease Studies: Biological rationale, host–pathogen or immune mechanisms, experimental or clinical design, appropriate controls, and therapeutic relevance where applicable.
Toxicology and Drug-Safety Studies: Exposure design, appropriate controls, toxicity endpoints, safety assessment, mechanistic evidence, and interpretation of adverse effects.
Natural Products and Therapeutic Modulation Studies: Adequate characterization of interventions, methodological quality, biological or therapeutic rationale, appropriate controls, and evaluation of outcomes.
Computational and Systems Biology Studies: Model validity, computational methodology, statistical rigor, transparency, reproducibility, and biological interpretability.
All manuscripts submitted to NPT are treated as confidential documents throughout the editorial and peer-review process.
Reviewers and editors must:
Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and associated information.
Not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, professional, or academic advantage.
Not share manuscript files or confidential review materials with unauthorized individuals.
Declare actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest before accepting or conducting a review.
Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.
Treat authors and their work professionally and respectfully.
Reviewers should not make recommendations based on irrelevant characteristics such as nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other personal characteristics.
Because submitted manuscripts constitute confidential scholarly material, reviewers must not upload or disclose any portion of a submitted manuscript, including text, figures, tables, supplementary files, or confidential review materials, to generative AI systems or external large language models for the purpose of conducting or preparing a peer review, unless such use has been explicitly permitted by NPT and can be undertaken without compromising confidentiality.
Reviewers remain responsible for protecting confidential information and for ensuring that any permitted tools used during the review process do not compromise the integrity or confidentiality of the manuscript.
Manuscripts requiring revision may be returned to the original reviewers or, when appropriate, reassessed by other qualified reviewers.
Authors are expected to respond carefully and transparently to reviewer and editorial comments and to provide a point-by-point response when submitting a revised manuscript.
Multiple rounds of revision may be requested when necessary to address substantive scientific, methodological, ethical, or presentation-related concerns.
The handling editor evaluates the manuscript together with the peer-review reports and makes an editorial recommendation.
The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized senior editor in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.
Peer-review reports inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine them. Editorial decisions are based on the overall scientific quality, methodological validity, originality, relevance, ethical integrity, and suitability of the manuscript for NPT.
Authors may appeal a formal rejection decision when they believe that the decision resulted from:
A substantive misunderstanding of the manuscript;
A significant factual or methodological error in the assessment; or
A demonstrable procedural irregularity.
Appeals should:
Be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office within 14 days of the decision notification;
Clearly identify the manuscript and decision being appealed;
Provide a concise, evidence-based, point-by-point explanation of the grounds for appeal; and
Address the specific scientific or procedural issues underlying the appeal.
Appeals are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief and, when appropriate, an independent editor or adjudicator who was not directly involved in the original decision.
An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance. Decisions following the appeal process are final within the journal's editorial process.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication procedures, or ethical matters are handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and applicable COPE guidance.
Editorial decisions are based on the scientific, methodological, ethical, and scholarly merits of submitted work.
Editors must exercise independent editorial judgment and should not allow commercial, financial, political, institutional, personal, or other external interests to influence editorial decisions.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest or personal or professional relationship could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent judgment.
The publisher and journal management must respect editorial independence and must not interfere with the independent assessment of manuscripts.
Confidentiality is maintained after the completion of peer review. Reviewer identities remain protected in accordance with the journal's double-blind review model, except where disclosure is required by applicable law, ethical investigation, or other exceptional circumstances.
NPT maintains appropriate editorial and peer-review records to support the integrity, transparency, and accountability of its publication process.
NPT considers manipulation or fraudulent interference with the peer-review process to be a serious publication-ethics concern.
Potential examples include, but are not limited to:
Fabricated or falsified reviewer identities;
Attempts to influence or interfere improperly with reviewer selection;
Submission of fabricated reviewer recommendations;
Undisclosed conflicts of interest affecting peer review; or
Unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential peer-review information.
Suspected peer-review manipulation will be investigated in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and applicable COPE guidance.