Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

The publication processes of Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia rest on the fair production, development, and dissemination of knowledge through scientific method. Peer-reviewed research articles support and embody the scientific method, so it is essential that every party in the publication process, namely the publisher, the editors, the authors, and the reviewers, observes accepted ethical standards. In keeping with this, the journal's open-access and publication-ethics policies require all parties to follow the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal also aligns its practice with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Policy on Data Falsification and Fabrication

All manuscripts submitted to Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia undergo a strict similarity check, and studies whose similarity index exceeds 20% are not accepted for publication. The data set of each study is reviewed carefully by the journal's subject editors. If this review shows that the statistical data do not comply with research-integrity procedures, the manuscript is rejected without entering the editorial process. Where the author or authors are found to have fabricated or falsified data, the manuscript is rejected and the matter is reported to the author's institution. The editors and reviewers reserve the right to request the raw data underlying a manuscript.

Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia is published by İstanbul Medipol University, a non-profit public educational institution. The journal is open access, which means that all content is freely available to readers and their institutions at no charge. Subject to the journal's licensing terms (see Copyright and Licensing below), users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and link to the full texts of the articles for any lawful, non-commercial purpose without prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Responsibilities of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board of Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia is accountable for the whole article-submission process. This responsibility requires decisions to be made independently and in the public interest rather than for personal gain. The editors' decisions are taken independently of the publisher and of any other individual or institution, and the relationship between the publisher and the editorial board rests on a policy of editorial independence.

1. The Editorial Board is committed to the continuous improvement of the journal's quality.
2. The Editorial Board establishes and implements the journal's policies on publication, blind review, evaluation processes, and ethical principles.
3. Authors retain the copyright of the articles published in the journal, which are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence; the Editorial Board acts to safeguard these rights.
4. The Editorial Board protects authors' intellectual property rights during the publication process and works to prevent unethical conduct, plagiarism, and citation manipulation.
5. The Editorial Board prepares the Instructions for Authors to inform authors about the submission, evaluation, and publishing procedures.
6. The Editorial Board keeps a record of each article in electronic form.

Responsibilities of Editors, Editorial Assistants, and Field Editors

1. Editors aim to give clear information to reviewers, authors, researchers, and readers, and to answer their questions in line with the principle of clarity.
2. In the publication process, editors assess whether articles are original, contribute to the literature, and serve the needs of readers and researchers.
3. Editors consider originality, contribution to the field, clarity of expression, content, and the validity and reliability of the work when deciding on publication.
4. Editors move suitable manuscripts into preliminary evaluation, give due weight to favourable reviewer feedback, and do not overturn reviewer decisions unless significant publishing concerns arise.
5. Editors enforce the blind-review standard and the evaluation procedures, protect authors' personal information, and ensure that manuscripts are assessed fairly and on time.
6. Editors assign articles to field editors and reviewers according to their areas of expertise, so that evaluations are impartial and independent.
7. During evaluation, editors assess whether there is any conflict of interest or collaboration between authors and reviewers.
8. Editors maintain a sufficient pool of reviewers and keep this information up to date.
9. Editors exclude non-scientific content that does not meet academic ethics standards.
10. Editors ensure that the journal's publication procedures follow established policies and guidelines, communicate updates to the relevant parties, and arrange training when necessary.
11. Editors communicate effectively with everyone involved in the publication process and hold meetings at regular intervals.
12. Editors protect the personal data in the manuscripts they evaluate and maintain the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, and readers.
13. Editors prioritise the protection of human and animal rights, require documented consent from participants, and reject submissions that lack ethics-committee approval and the permits needed for experimental research.
14. Editors take precautions against misconduct; where there is a complaint of abuse of duty, an objective investigation is carried out and the findings are shared.
15. Editors identify errors, inconsistencies, or misleading information in articles so that they can be corrected.
16. Editors defend the intellectual property rights of published articles and uphold the rights of the journal and the authors in cases of infringement; they also ensure that published content does not infringe the intellectual property of others by checking originality and similarity.
17. Editors review consistent criticism of published articles and give authors the opportunity to respond.
18. Editors also consider studies that report negative results.
19. Editors assess complaints submitted to the journal and provide appropriate responses.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Articles in Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia undergo a double-blind review process in which neither the authors nor the reviewers know one another's identity. Reviewers may not contact authors directly; evaluation forms and proofreading requests reach authors through the journal's system.

1. Reviewers should accept to evaluate only manuscripts within their field of expertise.
2. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts impartially and confidentially, and should destroy the manuscript documents after the evaluation in line with this principle.
3. Evaluation should remain impartial and free from the influence of nationality, gender, religious or political belief, or commercial concerns.
4. A reviewer who identifies a conflict of interest or collaboration should notify the editors and decline to evaluate the manuscript.
5. Reviewers should assess manuscripts constructively and with academic courtesy, avoiding insulting or hostile personal comments.
6. Reviewers must inform the editors of any conflict of interest or collaboration relating to the manuscript.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

1. Authors must not submit to Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia a manuscript that has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.
2. Authors must submit original work and must cite the sources they use in line with ethical principles.
3. Individuals who have not contributed to a study should not be listed as authors, and proposals to change the author order of a published article or to add authors should not be made.
4. Authors should provide the editorial office with information about the study, or with the raw data, where this is required during evaluation.
5. Authors must be able to document their right to use the data presented, including research permissions and approvals from the participants involved.
6. On discovering an error relating to the evaluation, early-view, or published version of their article, authors must contact the editors to provide information, correct the article, or withdraw it.
7. Authors must state that ethics-committee approval was obtained for research requiring it, giving the name of the committee and the date and number of the decision in the methods section, and must confirm that informed consent was obtained for clinical studies.
8. Authors must document their compliance with ethical principles in data collection, including permission to use scales, questionnaires, and photographs, and must report that research involving human or animal subjects followed international guidelines and standards.
9. Ethics-committee approval is not required for review articles; for work that does not require an ethics decision, this should be stated in the relevant section of the article.

Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication. Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, and each published article displays its licence. The full copyright and licensing terms are set out in the journal's Journal Policies.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be perceived to influence the conduct, assessment, or reporting of research. Authors declare such interests in a conflict-of-interest statement within the manuscript, reviewers decline manuscripts in which they have a competing interest, and editors recuse themselves from any submission in which they have an interest.

Respectful and Professional Conduct

The journal expects authors, reviewers, editors, and staff to treat one another with respect at every stage of the publication process. Discrimination, harassment, bullying, and retaliation are not tolerated.

Citation Practices

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to cite this or any other journal, or their own work, except for genuine scholarly reasons. The journal does not engage in any practice intended to manipulate citation counts or journal metrics.

Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Generative artificial-intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors, since they cannot take responsibility for the content or integrity of a work. Any use of such tools in preparing a manuscript must be disclosed, and reviewers must not upload manuscripts to such tools, as this would breach the confidentiality of the review process. The journal's full policy on this is set out in the Journal Policies.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision on their manuscript or submit a complaint about the journal's conduct, policies, or procedures. Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidance and should be addressed to the editor@actapharmsci.com (the journal's editorial-office address). The full procedure is described in the journal's Journal Policies.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

The journal corrects the published record, when necessary, through corrigenda, errata, retractions, and expressions of concern, following COPE guidance. The full policy, including the handling of article removal in exceptional cases, is set out in the journal's Journal Policies.

Data Sharing and Availability

The journal encourages authors to make the data underlying their findings available wherever this is ethically and legally possible and to include a data-availability statement in their article. The full policy is set out in the journal's Journal Policies.

Notification of Unethical Situations

Any situation involving an article, editor, reviewer, or author that does not comply with the ethical principles of Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia should be reported to the editorial office at editor@actapharmsci.com. Reports are examined by the Editor-in-Chief following the relevant COPE flowcharts, and the person concerned is given a fair opportunity to respond. The journal does not retaliate against those who raise genuine concerns in good faith.