Editorial Responsibilities

Skip to content

Editorial board members of the Archives of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (APPS) play a critical role in ensuring the quality, transparency, and credibility of the scientific record. This document sets out comprehensive responsibilities, drawn from COPE, ICMJE, and WAME standards, alongside APPS’s own editorial policies.

Upholding Quality and Integrity

Editors are the guardians of scientific integrity. Their decisions must reflect commitment to accuracy, relevance, and originality. They must:

  • Evaluate manuscripts based solely on academic merit.
  • Ensure peer review is objective, fair, and free from bias.
  • Reject or retract content when significant ethical or scientific flaws are identified.

Example: If data fabrication is suspected, editors must initiate investigation following COPE flowcharts and ensure corrective action such as rejection or retraction.

Timeliness and Responsiveness

Editors must manage manuscripts efficiently to respect authors’ time and the need for timely dissemination of research. Responsibilities include:

  • Providing initial decisions within 7–10 working days.
  • Ensuring reviews are returned within journal timelines (typically 2–4 weeks).
  • Communicating delays transparently with authors and reviewers.

Ethical Oversight

Editors are responsible for investigating suspected cases of plagiarism, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, or unethical research practices. They should:

  • Use similarity-detection software to identify plagiarism.
  • Contact authors promptly to clarify discrepancies.
  • Refer unresolved cases to the publisher or COPE for guidance.

Conflict of Interest Management

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where personal or financial conflicts exist. Clear policies must be in place to transfer editorial duties to another editor in such cases.

Reviewer Selection and Guidance

Editors are expected to:

  • Select reviewers based on expertise, diversity, and impartiality.
  • Provide reviewers with clear guidelines and deadlines.
  • Respect reviewer confidentiality and acknowledge contributions.

Communication with Authors and Reviewers

Editors must ensure clear, respectful, and transparent communication throughout the editorial process. Decision letters should include:

  • Constructive feedback summarizing reviewer comments.
  • Clear guidance on required revisions.
  • Rationale for rejection where applicable.

Commitment to Continuous Improvement

Editors must engage in professional development through workshops, COPE webinars, and WAME resources. They should also contribute to refining APPS’s editorial processes for efficiency and fairness.

Transparency and Accountability

Editorial decisions must be documented within the journal’s manuscript system. Audit trails should capture dates, reviewer assignments, and rationale for acceptance or rejection to ensure accountability.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: How should editors handle manuscripts with suspected data fabrication?
A: Request raw data from the authors. If concerns remain, follow COPE misconduct flowcharts and consult the publisher.

Q2: Can editors publish their own research in APPS?
A: Yes, provided another independent editor manages the process to prevent conflicts of interest.

Q3: What should an editor do if an author disputes a rejection?
A: Provide a reasoned explanation referencing reviewer comments. Authors may appeal, but final decisions rest with the editorial board.

Contact

For questions regarding editorial responsibilities, editors can contact: