The Journal of Pharmacology and Drug Development (JPDD) and its publisher, Al-Nahrain University, College of Pharmacy, are committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process.
We follow the Core Practices and guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure integrity and respond to any allegations of research or publication misconduct.
This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities for all parties involved in publishing with our journal: the Authors, the Editors, the Peer Reviewers, and the Publisher. All parties are expected to read and understand these principles.
Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief and handling editors are responsible for the final decision to accept, reject, or request revisions for a manuscript.
Fair Play: Editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope. Decisions are made without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial staff, as appropriate.
Conflict of Interest (COI): Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a competing interest. This includes any personal, professional, financial, or academic conflicts. Editors must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the author's explicit written consent.
Vigilance and Misconduct: Editors will actively investigate any ethical complaints or allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) regarding a submitted or published paper. This includes following COPE-recommended procedures and may result in issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and, through constructive feedback, helps authors improve their manuscripts.
Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Confidentiality: As JPDD operates a double-blind review, reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document. It must not be shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Conflict of Interest (COI): Reviewers must decline an invitation to review if they have any competing interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.
Timeliness: Reviewers who accept an invitation should complete their review within the specified timeframe. If they feel unqualified or unable to complete the review on time, they must notify the editor immediately.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must guarantee that their work is entirely original. If the work and/or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms (including "self-plagiarism" or "text-recycling") constitutes a severe breach of ethics and is unacceptable. All manuscripts may be checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software.
Data Integrity: Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed. Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data is unethical and will lead to immediate rejection or retraction. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review.
Authorship Criteria: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. "Guest" or "gift" authorship is unethical. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Redundant Publication: Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently ("simultaneous submission"). Submitting a manuscript that has already been published elsewhere ("redundant publication") is also unethical.
Ethical Approvals (Human and Animal Subjects): For research involving human subjects, authors must state that the study was approved by an appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. For animal studies, authors must confirm that all procedures were approved by an appropriate institutional animal care and use committee and followed relevant guidelines.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest (COI): All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
Acknowledgement of Funding: All sources of financial support for the research must be clearly disclosed in the manuscript.
Discovery of Errors: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate to retract the paper or publish a correction (erratum).
JPDD takes all allegations of misconduct seriously. We will investigate all claims of plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, authorship disputes, or other ethical breaches.
We will follow the flowcharts and guidelines recommended by COPE to address these concerns. If misconduct is confirmed, the journal reserves the right to take appropriate action, which may include, but is not limited to:
Requesting an explanation from the author(s).
Issuing a formal correction (erratum) or expression of concern.
Retracting the affected article.
Informing the author's institution, ethics committee, or funding body.
Imposing a ban on future submissions to the journal.