Every experimental or clinical study may raise controversial ethical issues (e.g., Institutional Ethical Approval for working with animal or human subjects). Thus, Journal of HerbMed Pharmacology expects all authors, reviewers and editors to consider COPE, ICMJE and Equator Network’s reporting guidelines in medical ethics plus scientific writing. If any, authors should state related declaration(s), otherwise the following sentence should be given “None to be declared". Please take a look at the review process in the Journal of HerbMed Pharmacology.
The cover letter must include a statement declaring that the study complies with current ethical considerations.
Ethical issues (including plagiarism, misconduct, data fabrication, falsification, double publication or redundancy) must completely considered by the authors.
Authors reporting experimental studies on human subjects must include a statement of assurance in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript reading that: (1) informed consent was obtained from each patient enrolled in the study and (2) the study protocol conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki as reflected in a priori approval by the institution's human research committee. In studies involving animal experimentation, provide assurance that all animals received humane care according to the criteria outlined in the "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH publication 86-23 revised 1985).
DUTIES OF EDITORS
The editors of Journal of HerbMed Pharmacology are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. They are guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. They actively work to improve the quality of the journal.
The editor evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments