ADMET and DMPK

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

ADMET AND DMPK is committed to provide a forum where publishing ethics is a major aspect of the editorial and peer-review process. The Editorial process for a submission to the journal consists of a review, typically a blind peer review, followed by a section editor's decision to accept or decline the submission. If accepted in the review stage of the Editorial Process, the submission then goes through the editing stage which consists of copyediting, layout and proofreading. Then the submission is scheduled for publication in an issue of the journal. Depending on how the journal has been organized, the Editorial Process can be conducted by a single Editor or by a team of Editors, Sections Editors, Copyeditors, Layout Editors, and Proof-readers. Editorial process chain in all its parts ensures the integrity of the published materials.

ADMET AND DMPK follows closely a set of guidelines and recommendations published by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholary Work in Medical Journals, and Council of Science Editors (CSE) Editorial policy statements. All parties involved in the publishing process including editors, reviewers, authors and others are required to be familiar with them and especially to adhere to the publication ethics guidelines and malpractice statements described below.

 

Publication and authorship

- All contributions conform to the focus and scope of the ADMET AND DMPK which can be found here: http://pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope. Authors are required to provide a statement about the submission describing how the manuscript fits to the journal content.
- All manuscript should be written and organized in accordance to the Authors’ guidelines: http://pub.iapchem.org/ojs/index.php/admet/about/submissions#authorGuidelines.
- Manuscripts submitted to this journal must not be under simultaneous consideration by any other journal
- Manuscripts submitted to this journal should not have been published elsewhere in identical or substantially similar form.

 

Author’s responsibilities

- All authors, including co-authors, are expected to have made reasonable attempts to check and validate results submitted to the journal for publication. This should be followed by the statement to the Editor that all data are real and authentic.
- Authors are expected to keep all study data for later examination even after publication.
- Authors are required to provide information about ethical aspects of research, particularly where research involves human or animal participants or use of biological material.
- Authors should confirm that the manuscript is not in any portion under consideration elsewhere or published in another journal. This should be clearly stated in the letter to editor.
- Authors need to ensure that all of them contributed to the scientific results and findings in the sufficient extent to be regarded as a co-authorship. “Guest authorship” without the actual involvement of the co-author and “Ghost authorship” without listing of real author are considered as a very serious misconduct.
- Authors should have no commercial or non-commercial conflict of interest.
- Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and to the best of their ability to respond to the requirements of the Reviewers and Editors for the corrections and improvement of the manuscript.

 

Peer review / responsibility for reviewers

- To agree to review only if they have required expertise to give proper assessment and judgement of the submitted paper.

- To agree to review only if they are confident they can return the review within reasonable timeframe as set by the Editorial office.

- Indicate if any of conflict of interest might arise by performing review.

- Reviewers should point out on relevant published work which is not cited in the article.

- Reviewers should immediately inform the Editors if any form of plagiarism is identified within submitted work including “text and data recycling” as well as “redundant or duplicate publication”.

- By agreeing to review, reviewer is obliged to keep the confidentiality of the peer review and to refrain from taking advantage of the information contained in the submitted work.

 

Editorial responsibilities

- Editors will ensure that all submissions go through the fast and fair peer-review and editorial procedure. The fast publication is a priority of Editors-in-chief, Section editors and Managing editors.

- Editors take full responsibility for everything published in the Journal of Electrochemical Science and Engineering, hence the acceptance or rejection of the submitted work is Editor’s sole decision. However, this decision should be based only on the originality and the quality of the paper and should not be affected by the religious, national, political or any other influences.

- Editors should express the concern and act immediately if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.

 

Publishing ethics issues and procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

ADMET AND DMPK together with its editors make a great effort and devote considerable time to maintain and encourage academic integrity by ensuring that all published material conforms to the internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors seek assurance that research disclosed in the article has been approved by appropriate body.

- If an inaccuracy, misleading text or wrong explanations are found in the published article, it must be corrected promptly.

- In the case of seriously flawed article, a prompt reaction which might lead to the complete retraction of the article will ensue. The procedure for retracting articles will follow guidance produced by COPE.

- Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.

- Editor will promptly respond to possible misconduct or inappropriate behaviour of any parties involved in the publishing process including authors and reviewers. Misconducts can range from minor to serious breaches of the publication ethics. The procedure for dealing with such circumstances will strictly follow flowcharts and guidelines published by COPE.

- Editors will be willing to publish corrections, erratums, clarifications and apologies if the need for doing so arises.

- All complaints will be seriously investigated by the editor regardless of who files the complaint.

 

Statement of informed consent

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. Applicable laws vary from locale to locale, and journals should establish their own policies with legal guidance. Since a journal that archives the consent will be aware of patient identity, some journals may decide that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the author archive the consent and instead providing the journal with a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning. The requirement for informed consent should be included in the journal’s instructions for authors. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.

 

Human and animal rights

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

 



ISSN 1848-7718