|
Editorial Policies Regarding Ethical Issues
Submission of a paper to AAPS PharmSci implies that all listed authors
acknowledge and accept the following principles:
Results presented as new data have not been published and are not being
considered for publication elsewhere.
Each listed author has contributed to and reviewed the submitted manuscript
and takes responsibility for its scientific validity overall. An author’s
contribution may take various forms, including the conduct of the research work,
data interpretation and presentation, and direction of part or all of the
research project.
It is AAPS PharmSci policy that funding sources be divulged to
disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Editor-in-Chief should be notified
of any potential conflict of interest, for example, if an author performs
research on a product of a company in which the author holds a substantial
financial interest.
Scientific Misconduct
The editorial review process may, on occasion, uncover cases of possible
scientific misconduct. The Editor-in-Chief therefore outlines here editorial
policies and intended response to such instances. Unethical behavior or
scientific misconduct may include, but is not restricted to: plagiarism, data
fabrication or falsification, failure to disclose conflicts of interest,
misrepresentation of authorship or failure to give due credit to authors, and
duplicate or simultaneous publication of research results. When an Editor of
AAPS PharmSci suspects unethical behavior or scientific misconduct by an
author, the matter will be dealt with as follows:
The Editor-in-Chief will seek out and evaluate all evidence pertaining to the
matter that is available from the responsible Editor, referees, and members of
the AAPS PharmSci editorial boards. This investigation will be contained
within the editorial process, which includes the Board of Editors, the Editorial
Advisory Board, referees assigned to review this work, and the AAPS Publications
Board.
The Editor-in-Chief will inform the author(s) of his/her findings and invite
a response.
If the author(s)’ response is deemed unsatisfactory by the Editor-in-Chief,
he/she may impose sanctions against the author(s). Sanctions may include:
rejection of the paper and exclusion from submission of papers to AAPS
PharmSci for a specified period of time.
Before sanctions are imposed, the Editor-in-Chief will inform the author(s)
of the intended sanction(s) to provide an opportunity for submission of any
additional facts and/or mitigating circumstances.
If the Editor-in-Chief considers an infraction sufficiently serious, he/she
may, following consultation with legal counsel and with the consent of the
Publications Board, refer the matter for further investigation by other
authorities, such as employers, granting agencies, or regulatory agencies. Such
action will take place only after all internal editorial steps have been
completed.
Referees for AAPS PharmSci are subject to the following ethical
guidelines:
Each submitted manuscript is confidential and shall not be distributed or
serve as the basis for the referee’s own research.
If research reported in a submitted manuscript overlaps and/or competes with
a referee’s own work, the referee shall return the manuscript immediately to the
Editor-in-Chief, along with a cover letter indicating inability to review the
manuscript because of a potential conflict of interest.
If a referee has a substantial financial or professional interest in an
institution or company where the research was performed, or holds any bias,
personal or professional, the manuscript shall be returned immediately by the
referee with a cover letter explaining the potential conflict of interest and/or
bias.
Wolfgang Sadée
Editor-in-Chief
AAPS PharmSci
| 
