The article presents an innovative concept by introducing “Pharmaceutical Humanities,” but several areas require attention. There are chronological inconsistencies, such as the tight timeline between revision and publication, which may raise questions about the depth of peer review. Additionally, the theoretical framework heavily relies on broad interpretations of Kuhn’s paradigm shifts without addressing critiques or offering sufficient empirical support for the claims made. Some statements, particularly about narrative efficacy, lack robust evidence and overgeneralize the impact of interdisciplinary approaches. While the concept is intriguing, the paper risks conflating Pharmaceutical and Medical Humanities without clearly distinguishing the two fields, leaving critical gaps in its argumentation. Strengthening empirical foundations and addressing these inconsistencies could enhance the paper’s credibility and impact.
