Editorial Independence and Integrity

Editorial independence is the cornerstone of APPS. Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, relevance to pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences, and adherence to ethical standards. Decisions should never be influenced by political views, institutional affiliations, or financial considerations. This aligns with COPE’s “Core Practices” and DOAJ’s transparency principles.

Example: If a manuscript is funded by a major pharmaceutical company, editors must still apply the same rigorous standards as they would to an unfunded study, ensuring impartiality and transparency.

Manuscript Handling and Initial Assessment

Editors are responsible for conducting initial checks before peer review. These include scope assessment, ethical approval confirmation (if human/animal research is involved), and plagiarism screening. APPS uses similarity detection software to maintain integrity.

• Reject out-of-scope or duplicate submissions early to save reviewer time.
• Confirm compliance with APPS author guidelines and manuscript formatting.
• Ensure proper reporting standards such as CONSORT, PRISMA, or ARRIVE are followed where relevant.

Fair Play and Equity

Editors must evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on authors’ gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs. Editorial fairness reinforces the journal’s reputation as an unbiased global platform.

Confidentiality Obligations

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Editors must ensure that no information is disclosed to unauthorized individuals, except for the purpose of editorial assessment and peer review.

Breach Example: Sharing manuscript data with a colleague outside the review process violates confidentiality and could result in editorial misconduct.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors should declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where impartiality may be compromised. Conflicts may include financial ties, collaboration with authors, or competitive relationships.

Decision-Making Process

Editors are accountable for timely, evidence-based decisions. Acceptance or rejection must be justified with clear reasoning and aligned with reviewer comments. Where reviewers disagree, editors should exercise judgment to ensure fair resolution.

Ethical Oversight

Editors must take steps to identify and address research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submissions, and unethical authorship practices. COPE’s flowcharts provide structured guidance for handling suspected misconduct.

Reviewer Relations

Editors should recruit qualified reviewers, balance workload, and respect diversity in reviewer selection. Constructive relationships with reviewers enhance the quality of feedback and maintain the integrity of the peer-review system.

Continuous Professional Development

Editors are encouraged to engage in ongoing training on publishing ethics, new editorial technologies, and best practices in open access. Attending COPE or WAME webinars and staying updated with ICMJE recommendations helps maintain editorial excellence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: What should an editor do if a reviewer suspects plagiarism?
A: Follow COPE’s plagiarism flowchart. Contact the authors for clarification and, if necessary, reject the manuscript while documenting the process.

Q2: Can an editor publish in APPS?
A: Yes, but only if a different editor handles the review and decision process to prevent conflicts of interest.

Q3: How quickly should editors respond to submissions?
A: Initial checks should be completed within 7 days, and reviewer invitations sent within 10–14 days. Final decisions should aim to be made within 6–8 weeks of submission.

Contact

For clarifications regarding these guidelines, editors may reach out to:

• Email: info@hspioa.org
• Contact Form: https://www.pharmacyscijournal.com/contact