Confidentiality and Ethics

Skip to content

Confidentiality and ethical responsibility form the foundation of editorial practice. Editors at the Archives of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (APPS) must protect sensitive information, act with fairness, and maintain the trust of authors, reviewers, and readers. This page consolidates confidentiality standards and ethical principles in line with COPE, ICMJE, and WAME frameworks.

Confidentiality of Manuscripts

Editors must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential. Manuscripts are unpublished intellectual property, and editors must ensure they are not shared outside the editorial and peer-review process. This applies to research data, graphics, supplementary files, and author identities in double-blind systems.

Practical rule: Editors should avoid storing manuscript files on personal devices without encryption and must never use manuscript content for personal advantage.

Confidentiality in Peer Review

The identity of reviewers must be kept confidential unless reviewers request disclosure. Editors must safeguard review reports and ensure they are not shared beyond the journal’s editorial system. In double-blind review, editors should verify that files contain no identifying metadata before sharing with reviewers.

Protection of Author Data and Privacy

Editors are responsible for protecting author data. Names, affiliations, and contact information should only be used for editorial purposes and never disclosed or sold. Compliance with international privacy standards, including GDPR, is mandatory.

Ethical Handling of Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and decline handling manuscripts where impartiality could be compromised. Editorial decisions should be re-assigned to another qualified editor in such cases. Transparency and disclosure ensure fairness and maintain trust in the editorial system.

Ethical Communication with Authors and Reviewers

Editors must communicate respectfully and constructively. Decision letters should be clear and provide actionable feedback. Negative feedback must remain professional, avoiding dismissive or personal remarks. Ethical communication fosters a culture of trust and mutual respect.

Ethical Oversight of Research Integrity

Editors must act swiftly when potential misconduct is identified, such as plagiarism, data falsification, or authorship disputes. COPE’s flowcharts provide practical guidance for resolving such cases. Documentation of actions ensures transparency and accountability.

Responsible Use of Privileged Information

Editors must never use unpublished manuscript data for personal gain, financial profit, or academic advancement. Privileged information, such as innovative methods or unpublished findings, must remain protected until the work is formally published.

Example: An editor who uses a novel drug formulation described in a confidential submission for personal research breaches ethical responsibility and damages trust.

Respect for Diversity and Global Equity

Editors must ensure decisions are free from bias based on nationality, gender, race, religion, or institutional affiliation. Ethical editorial practice demands equity in evaluating scholarship from diverse contexts, especially from underrepresented regions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can editors discuss manuscripts with colleagues outside the editorial team?
A: No. Discussion must remain within the editorial team and assigned reviewers to preserve confidentiality.

Q: What if an editor accidentally learns about an author’s identity in a blinded process?
A: The editor must continue handling the manuscript impartially and document the breach for transparency.

Q: How should editors handle a reviewer request to know the author’s identity?
A: Such requests should be declined in double-blind review to preserve the fairness of the process.

Contact

For further clarification on confidentiality and editorial ethics, editors may contact: