Logo
    Pharmacognosy Reviews

    Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

    The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the Pharmacognosy Reviews is guided by the principles and standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Pharmacognosy Reviews is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards throughout the publication process. The responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors are described below.

    Responsibilities of Authors

    1. Originality and Attribution: Authors warrant that submitted manuscripts are original, have not been previously published, and are not under consideration elsewhere. Proper attribution (citations and quotations) must be given for ideas and material that are not the authors' own.
    2. Redundant Publication: Authors must refrain from submitting the same research to multiple journals or outlets. Redundant or duplicate publication is unethical and may lead to rejection or retraction.
    3. Accuracy and Data Presentation: Reports of original research must accurately describe methods and results and provide sufficient detail and references to allow replication. Fabrication, falsification, or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable and may lead to rejection or retraction.
    4. Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose potential conflicts of interest, including financial support and relationships relevant to the work. If the manuscript discusses commercial products (software, hardware, etc.), this must be declared at the beginning of the manuscript.
    5. Copyright and Licensing: If accepted, authors agree that the published article will be licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, which allows others to copy, distribute, and display the work under the license terms while the authors retain copyright.
    6. Permissions for Third-Party Content: Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission for any third-party images or artwork included in their articles. Copyright holders should be informed that the material will be made available online under the journal's Creative Commons license.
    7. Authorship and Acknowledgments: Authorship should reflect significant intellectual contribution. All listed authors must accept responsibility for their contributions. Individuals who contributed marginally should be named in an "Acknowledgments" section instead of being listed as authors.
    8. Correction of Errors: Authors must promptly notify the editors if they discover substantial errors in their published work and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions when appropriate.

    Responsibilities of Reviewers

    1. Voluntary Review: Reviewers serve voluntarily and should complete reviews in a timely manner—typically within three weeks of accepting an invitation—unless they must decline due to time constraints or lack of expertise.
    2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should decline assignments where a significant conflict of interest exists (competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, institutions, or companies mentioned in the manuscript).
    3. Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss content with unauthorized individuals.
    4. Objective and Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be objective, constructive, and focused on improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors should be avoided. Reviewers should justify their recommendations.
    5. Identification of Ethical Issues: Reviewers should identify relevant prior work not cited by the authors and alert editors to substantial overlap or ethical concerns related to the research.

    Responsibilities of Editors

    1. Publication Decisions: The Editor has ultimate responsibility for publication decisions, guided by journal policy and ethical standards.
    2. Confidentiality: Editors must protect the confidentiality of the peer review process and share manuscript information only with authorized parties (authors, reviewers, editorial team).
    3. Objective Evaluation: Manuscripts should be evaluated on intellectual merit alone, without regard to the author’s personal attributes (race, gender, nationality, religion, political beliefs, etc.). Editors should ensure fairness and integrity in the review process.
    4. Ethical Review: Editors should assess ethical aspects of the research, including whether harms have been minimized and whether appropriate ethical approvals were obtained. Editors may request documentation of ethics approval when necessary.
    5. Retractions and Corrections: Editors will follow COPE guidelines when issuing retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern and will cooperate with institutions regarding research integrity investigations.

    Pharmacognosy Reviews is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. The journal follows closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements.

    Related Policies & Resources