Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Pharmaciana publishes original article in the all scopes of Pharmaceutical Science such as Pharmaceutics, Biopharmaceutics, Drug Delivery System, Physical Pharmacy, Chemical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Technology, Pharmaceutical Microbiology and Biotechnology, Pharmacology and Toxicology, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Pharmaceutical Biology, Community and Clinical Pharmacy, Regulatory Affairs and Management Pharmacy, and  Alternative Medicines.


Section Policies

Analytical Pharmacy and Medicinal Chemistry

  • Dadan Hermawan, M.Si., Ph.D
  • Irwandi Jaswir
  • Nurkhasanah Mahfudh,M.Si
  • Iin Narwanti, MSc.
  • Abdul Rohman, MSi.
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


  • Moch. Bachri
  • Zullies Ikawati
  • Sapto Yuliani, MP
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical and Community Pharmacy

  • Akrom Akrom, M.Kes
  • Dyah Aryani Perwitasari
  • Faridah Baroroh, MSc
  • Susan Candradewi, M.Sc
  • Keri Lestari Dandan,M.Si.
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Technology

  • Annas Binarjo, M.Sc.
  • Citra Edityaningrum, M.Si
  • Lannie Hadisoewignyo, M.Si
  • Akhmad Kharis Nugroho,M.Si.
  • Nining Sugihartini,M.Si
  • Anita Sukmawati, Ph.D
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Biology Pharmacy

  • Kenny Chitcholtan
  • Isnaeni Haryanto
  • Laela Nurani, MSi.
  • Nina Salamah, M.Sc
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Every submitted paper will be initialized review by a Section Editor whether it is suitable for Pharmaciana's focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using iThenticate. If the manuscript meets these requirements then the manuscript will be reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers and the review process uses a Single-Blind Peer Review.

Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. The suggested decision will be evaluated in an editorial board meeting. Afterward, the editor will send a decision to the corresponding author.

Review Outcomes
Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include:

  1. Decline Submission - The manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to Pharmaciana.
  2. Resubmit for Review - The submission needs to be re-worked, but it may be accepted with significant changes. However, It will require a second round of review.
  3. Revisions Required- Manuscripts will be published in Pharmaciana under the condition that minor/major modifications are made. An editor will review revisions to ensure necessary updates are made before publication.
  4. Accept Submission- Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form, with no further modifications required.

Editing Stages

The Accepted manuscript will be continued to copyediting, layout editing, and proofreading before it is published.


Publication Frequency

This journal is published 3 times per year in March, July and November


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.




Publication Ethics

Pharmaciana is a scientific journal published by the University of Ahmad Dahlan worked closely with Ikatan Apoteker Indonesia (IAI). The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the Pharmaciana does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the Pharmaciana, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular manuscript.
  2. The review process is double-blind peer-review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in the review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. The authors must participate in the peer-review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. The authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. The authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. The authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscripts.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published papers to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of research funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members


Conflicts of Interest

The journal requires that all authors disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest.

“The potential for conflict of interest and bias exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.”

Any interest or relationship, financial or otherwise that might be perceived as influencing an author's objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest. These must be disclosed when directly relevant or directly related to the work that the authors describe in their manuscript. Potential sources of conflict of interest include, but are not limited to the following: patent or stock ownership, membership of a company board of directors, membership of an advisory board or committee for a company. If the authors have no conflict of interest to declare, they must also state this at submission. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to review this policy with all authors and collectively to disclose with the submission.