Editorial Policies

Research Misconduct

Scholarly misconduct has been defined and divided into different types. Measures to avoid and answer these are discussed below. Considering the recommendations of COPE, the suggested actions for individual issues are as follows. The suggested protocols for each issue can be observed by clicking on the links provided below (please note that flowcharts have been provided for each category to clearly indicate how the ethical issues in a submitted manuscript or published article are handled). The Current Pharma Science Research has a systematic protocol to deal with allegations of misconduct, whether before or after the publication of an article. The sequence of actions taken in these cases is provided in the flowchart and is the same as that provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). To deal with issues of misconduct, Current Pharma Science Research has an Ethics Advisory Panel, which consists of,

a). A team of senior researchers and experts was associated with Current Pharma Science Research as an editor in various fields.

b). A team of experts in legal and corporate affairs who provide suggestions to other members of The Ethics Advisory Panel on issues that require legal/corporate communication.

c). The current senior publication team of Pharma Science Research at the Editorial Office manages the communication between a and b and executes the decisions put forward by the Ethics Advisory Panel.

When a complaint is received, the senior publication team of the Current Pharma Science Research communicates with the members of the Ethics Advisory Panel to seek counselling. The Ethics Advisory Panel carefully reviewed the case and advised on ethical issues and decisions according to the core practices and guidelines of COPE. The basic procedure for executing any claim is as follows:

1. Documentation of the Claim

The senior editorial team of Pharma Science Research coordinates with the complainant to document the reported claim and prepare the factual report based on the following questions: Who (is implicated)? What (is an ethical issue)? When (did this happen)?, where (was the problem)? Why (is this important)?.

2. Involvement of Author(s)

If the documented claim/complaint was against the author of the Journal of Pharma Science Research article, then following the general practice guidelines mentioned above, the Journal of Pharma Science Research chef editorial team first contacted the author and inquired about the claim/complaint made, and the author was allowed to explain/defend the allegation. The author’s comments were then reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Panel and relayed to the editor-in-chief of the respective journal for further action. The Ethics Advisory Panel reserves the right to agree to the Editor-in-Chief’s decision when members feel that it may not be in line with their assessment of an ethical breach.

3. Involvement of External Committees

The publisher may involve external committees if the complaint appears to be of merit, may have complexities, and investigations with other institutions and agencies may help resolve the complaint reasonably. For instance, the following external bodies are contacted based on the nature of the claim or complaint. Other journals/publishers were contacted for claims involving plagiarism and duplicate publications. The researchers’ institutions were notified of complaints related to authorship and fraud. Funding agencies or ethical committees are approached for matters involving conflicts of interest or violations of research ethics. The publisher may put forward some complain to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) if advice is required. If a complaint is made by authors of publications in Current Pharma Science Research journals or books against another author of a publication in another journal or book within Current Pharma Science Research, the Editor-in-Chief of one journal may contact the Editor-in-Chief of another Current Pharma Science Research journal. The remainder of the procedure remained the same for such cases, as stated earlier.

TYPES OF MISCONDUCT

1. Data Fabrication/Data Falsification

Data Fabrication: Data fabrication is an intentional misrepresentation of research results. As with other forms of scientific misconduct, this concerted effort highlights fabrication. These features can be fabricated in various ways. Experimental data can be fabricated by writing experiments that have never been conducted, and precise data can be influenced or misrepresented to suit anticipated results.

Data Falsification: Data falsification is the manipulation of research resources, equipment, or processes, including omissions and varying facts, with the intention of giving a false impression. The results were categorized as deceptive if the data were placed as images and when changes were made. This applies to cases including mislabelled figures, missing integral funding and/or other information, and authors' competing interests. However, it may be legitimate or even necessary to edit images. Generally, if an author’s figures are questionable, they are requested to provide original data from the authors. For example, the selective enlargement of part of an artwork may be needed to reveal features that would not otherwise be visible, and the editing of video data may be needed to protect the privacy of the participants. The authors declare that there were no image manipulations in this manuscript. Furthermore, the authors were asked to provide original images when requested or to supply them on request. Current Pharma Science Research recommends that its authors follow the recommendations of the Committee of Publication Ethics to avoid any allegations of image manipulation. Specific features within an image should not be enhanced, obscured, removed, moved or added. Adjustments to brightness or contrast are only acceptable if they apply equally across the entire image and are applied equally to controls, and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information and present the information as originally captured. Excessive manipulations, such as processing to emphasize one region in the image at the expense of others, are inappropriate because they emphasize experimental data relative to the control. Non-linear adjustments or deleting portions of the recording must be disclosed in the figure legend. The construction of figures from different gels, fields, exposures, and experimental series has been discouraged. When this is necessary, the component parts of the composite images should be indicated by dividing lines, clearly demarcated in the figure, and described in the legend. The original unprocessed images must be provided by the authors to identify any indication of the foregoing process. It may be helpful for journals to suggest that the original unprocessed images be submitted alongside any processed image.

Recommended Action

In the case of any claim/complaint/finding related to Data Fabrication or Falsification, the publisher will communicate the complaint to the corresponding author and ask him to provide his justifications (if any), or if he fails to defend, the publisher will involve his institution or the company in which he is employed. The overall matter will be addressed according to the protocols recommended by the Committee of Publication Ethics, as mentioned in the following links:

Before Publication

Suspected fabricated data from the submitted manuscript.

After Publication

Suspected fabricated data in a published article.

2. Duplicate Submission/Publication and Redundant Publication

Duplicate submission/publication: Submission of a single article/study in two different journals, or publication of an almost identical study in two journals, refers to duplicate submission. These proposals/publications can be found simultaneously or years apart, in which case it becomes an instance of a duplicate publication. The intention of this act is likely to be to acquire peer review services from one publisher while intending to publish them in another publisher’s journal. Another intention was to increase the publication count. Redundant publication: A redundant publication refers to the publication of the same data more than once, resulting in rejection or a request to merge the submitted manuscript with another and the rectification of published manuscripts. Seriously flawed or misleading content (plagiarized publications) may cause retraction of the article and the authors may be penalized. Redundant publications involve the reuse or derivation of content from previous studies without citations. Published/reproduced material should not be included unless written permission has been obtained from the copyright holder, which should be forwarded to the Editorial Office if the article is accepted for publication. This provides necessary information to assess whether it is deliberate or unintentional. Authors who wish to publish translations of articles that have been published elsewhere should ensure that they have appropriate permission(s), clearly indicate that the material has been translated and republished, and clearly specify the original source of the material. The Editor-in-Chief may request copies of related publications if they are concerned about overlapping and possible redundancy.

Recommended Action

Current Pharma Science Research recommends that its authors avoid duplicate or redundant submissions/publications. The submitted manuscript should be original and not have been submitted to any other journal. The first stage of checking for duplicate articles involved a simple comparison of the relevant texts in both articles. This can be a simple side-by-side comparison by the journal editor for simpler forms of duplicate publication or a more thoughtful analysis by the editor if the same research or a single research project has apparently been inappropriately written as separate articles. In some cases, an identical or similar version of an article may have been published by one journal (often in a national or local edition, usually in a local language) and legitimately republished in another journal that focuses on international publications. The ethical implications of such republications depend on the editorial policies of the journal and agreement between the editors of the two journals involved. Republication of an article may be appropriate provided that the prior publication and any relevant facts concerning such a publication are disclosed to and agreed upon by the editor. A brief explanation of these circumstances and the full citation details of the previous article should be published along with the newly published version, preferably as a footnote to the title. The overall case is dealt with according to the protocols of COPE, as mentioned in the following links.

Before Publication

Suspect redundant (duplicate) publications in the submitted manuscript.

After Publication

Suspect redundant (duplicate) publications in a published article.

3. Duplication of Text and/or Figures (Plagiarism)

Plagiarism refers to presenting (or outright copying) someone’s work, including words, ideas, or information, as one’s own without proper citation or acknowledgment. Plagiarism can be categorized into various factors: magnitude of copied material, novelty of copied material, position/context/type of material, and referencing/attribution of the material used.

Currently, Pharma Science Research has a clear editorial policy on the prevention of plagiarism. The complete plagiarism prevention protocol is mentioned in the Editorial Policies section of our website. Current Pharma Science Research uses iThenticate or Turnitin software to detect instances of overlapping and similar texts in submitted manuscripts. The Thenticate or Turnitin software checks the content against a database of periodicals, the Internet, and a comprehensive article database. COPE has flowcharts on how to handle cases of potential plagiarism in a submitted manuscript or published article, and Current Pharma Science Research follows the same protocol.

Recommended Action

If the complaint is related to plagiarism, the current pharmaceutical science research editorial publication team will compare the referred text to that of the manuscript on a word-to-word basis. If significant overlap is observed, the Editor-in-Chief of the journal will be consulted. In complex cases, the Editor-in-Chief may involve other members of the Editorial Board or external reviewers. For cases involving copyright infringements, Current Pharma Science Research consults its legal advisors for a decision and communicates it to the Ethical Advisory Panel and the journal Editor-in-chief. After careful consultation, the senior publication team of Current Pharma Science Research will write to the corresponding author of the manuscript (found to be plagiarized), summarizing the complaint, and requesting them to provide a reasonable explanation. If they are unable to provide a reasonable explanation, the publisher will write to the institution or company with which they are associated. The overall cases are handled according to the flowcharts given below by COPE.

Before Publication

Suspected Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

After Publication

Suspected Plagiarism in a published article

4. Authorship Issues

Authorship is important for assigning credibility to submitted or published work. It is ethical to include any genuine contributors to a given article, which is representative of the efforts taken to complete this work. Current Pharma Science Research follows guidelines in line with The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria (that is, all authors must meet these conditions). Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. Final approval of the version to be published. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Current Pharma Science Research publishes authors’ names according to their previously cited names and displays their institutional affiliations and email addresses (for the corresponding authors). Current addresses, telephone numbers, cell numbers, and fax numbers are not disclosed, unless required by the journal’s editorial policies. The e-mail address is provided with an asterisk in front of the name of the principal or corresponding author. Current Pharma Science Research regularly updates author details to keep them accurate. Affiliations are not changed after the publication of an article, unless there is an error in location or typo. The following is some advice from COPE on how to identify potential authorship problems. Current Pharma Science Research strives to follow these guidelines.

Recommended Action

The authors must provide a final list of authors at the time of submission, ensuring the correct sequence of names of authors, which will not be considered for any addition, deletion, or rearrangement after the final submission of the manuscript. If a change is required, it can only be done on an editor’s approval, for which the Editor-in-Chief must receive the following from the corresponding author. The reason for the change in the author list and sequence. Confirmation is a prerequisite for any amendment or removal from the coauthors. Any amendment to the authors' list will only be considered by the Editor-in-Chief if necessary. The publication of the manuscript will be withheld upon request. However, if the manuscript has already been published online, requests approved by the Editor-in-Chief will result in erratum or corrigendum. To deal with authorship disputes, Current Pharma Science Research is compliant with the COPE guidelines and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) for scientific publications.

General Advice

Advice on how to spot authorship problems

Before Publication

Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication

Corresponding author requests removal of the author before publication

After publication

Request for addition of extra author after publication

Request for removal of author after publication

Suspected guest, ghost or gift authorship

5. Undeclared Conflict of Interest (CoI)

Conflict of Interest: A conflict of interest refers to a situation in which there is potential for financial or other personal considerations from authors or reviewers to compromise or present bias in professional judgment and objectivity. The authors and reviewers are asked to declare all conflicts of interest relevant to the work under consideration (i.e., relationships, both financial and personal, that might interfere with the interpretation of the work) to avoid potential bias. The descriptions are presented in each article.

Recommended Action

The complainant is made aware that CoI matters cannot be investigated unless the journal editor-in-chief informs the corresponding (or complained-about) author (through due process) and possibly the institution or company where the research took place. In communication with the author in question, the Editor-in-Chief of the Current Pharma Science Research journal is requested to indicate whether the matter is likely to be referred to the institution or company where the research took place, the standard-setting body (if relevant), the institution or company that provided undisclosed financial support (if relevant), or any other relevant institution or agency (for example, a funding agency), unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).

All cases will be handled according to the following COPE guidelines

Before Publication

What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed CoI in a submitted manuscript

After Publication

What should be done if a reader suspects an undisclosed CoI in a published article?

6. Suspected Manipulation of Peer Review/Bias of Peer Review

Current Pharma Science Research selects reviewers for any manuscript with due care to avoid any conflicts of interest between the reviewers and authors. The Current Pharma Science Research peer review policy is explained in detail in this paper. Our policy complies with the COPE Guidelines on Peer Review.

Recommended Action

Current Pharma Science Research asks reviewers to declare and mention any conflicts of interest that could affect the standards of peer review and result in biased decisions. This includes professional affiliation. The reviewers are also advised not to use the information from any manuscript for their own interests until or unless that work is published. Similarly, the Editor-in-Chief is the final decision maker for any article published in the journal under their editorship, and they should not have any financial, professional, or personal interests in the manuscripts. If any conflicts of interest are found, they are asked to declare and withdraw from any decision-making process, and such cases will be dealt with by any other editor of the journal. In the case of any claim or complaint against a reviewer, Current Pharma Science Research will communicate the complaint to the reviewer and ask him to provide an explanation. If the reviewer fails to defend the assertions in the complaint, Current Pharma Science Research will involve his/her affiliation or employer. The overall matter was addressed according to the recommended policies of the COPE.

Before Publication

Manipulation of peer review.

After Publication

Suspected Manipulation of peer reviews after publication.

The reviewer was suspected to have appropriated the authors’ ideas or data.

7. Manipulation of Citations

Self-citation: This refers to the practice of including one’s work in the cited references of an article to increase the number of citations attributed to the same author. Authors who aim to increase the number of citations of a given author’s research work or manuscripts previously published in a particular journal will be sanctioned by Current Pharma Science Research. Similarly, editors and reviewers should not ask authors to add references just to increase citations of their own or an associate’s work, of the journal, or of another journal with which they are associated. Citation manipulation is a problem when references do not contribute to the scholarly content of an article, and are included solely to increase citations.

Recommended Action

The Current Pharma Science Research has a centralized system for identifying excessive self-citations when such a case arises. The authors are advised to provide a reasonable justification, and after consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, the final decision is made on a case-to-case basis. Current Pharma Science Research discourages Editors and Reviewers from recommending citations of their own or their peers’ previous work to gain false citations. Such cases were handled according to the standard protocols of COPE.

General Guidelines

https://publicationethics.org/citation-manipulation-discussion-document

8. Violation of Research Ethics

Research ethics address several issues.

Patient consent (medical research)

Animal experimentation (life sciences)

Recipient consent (market research)

User consent (social/online research)

Studies involving humans or animals must include informed consent from human subjects and standard protocols must be followed for animal experiments. Current Pharma Science Research has already mentioned the detailed policy of Ethical Standards under the Section Editorial Policies

Recommended Action

In communication with the author in question, the Current Pharma Science Research Journal Editor-in-Chief is requested to indicate whether the matter is likely to be referred to the institution or company where the research took place, the standard-setting body (if relevant), or any other relevant institution or agency (e.g., a funding agency) unless the author provides a reasonable explanation (accepted as reasonable by the editor).

Ethical issues will be handled according to the COPE protocols.