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.

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.

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.