Drug products are specific goods with safety and effectiveness in medical health case. All of researchers (authors), reviewers and editors must abide by medical ethical obligation, and also must deter to ethical obligation for publication. These guidelines are offered as ethical behavior standards. We now present a set of ethical guidelines for persons engaged in the publication of drug research, specifically, for editors, authors, and reviewers. We believe that the guidelines offered are understood and subscribed to by the pharmaceutical research scientists. They may be helpful to those who are related to editors, authors, and reviewers of journal publication.
1.  Ethical Obligation of Authors
1. An author’s key obligation is to present an accurate account of the research paper.
2. An author should recognize that journal space is precious resource created at considerable cost. Therefore, an author has an obligation to use it widely and economically.
3. An author should cite those publications that are influential in determining the nature of the reported study work and that will guide the reader to the earlier work quickly and that are essential for understanding the present investigation.
4. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe the current research, closely related citation to sources should also be made when a non-author supplied these.
5. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered. Information obtained privately, ad in conversation, should not be used in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigators with whom the information is originated.
6. The authors should reveal to the editor any potential conflict of interest. The authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would affect the publication of information in a submitted manuscript.
7. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the investigation reported and share duty and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or in an acknowledgments section.
8. The author who submits a manuscript for publication takes the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.
9. The submitting author should have sent each living co-author a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to the co-authorship of it.
10. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describe essentially the same research in more than one journal for primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.
2.  Ethical Obligation of Editors
1. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
2. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts submitted, and judge each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of authors.
3. An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with reasonable speed.
4. An editor should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought.
5. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the journal should be distributed to some other qualified editors of the journal. The editorial consideration of the manuscript in any way or form by the author-editor would constitute a conflict of interest, and is therefore improper.
6. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor. Responsible and prudent exercise of the duty normally requires that editor seek advice from reviewers, chosen for their expertise and good judgment, as to the quality and reliability of manuscript submitted for publication.
7. The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. The editor and members of the editor’s staff may disclose or publish manuscript titles and author names of papers that have been accepted for publication.
8. Unpublished information, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research without the consent of author.
9. An author may request that the editor not choose certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript.
10. When a manuscript is closely related to the current or past research of an editor as to create a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript.
3.  Ethical Obligation of Reviewers
1.As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in journal publication, therefore in the operation of the reviewers, every reviewer has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
2. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, of its experimental and theoretical work, of its interpretations and its exposition, in accordance with high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
3. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it to editor.
4. A reviewer should explain and support their judgment adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments.
5. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor be discussed with other expect, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought. In that event, the identifications of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
6. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner. If a reviewer receives a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the un-reviewed manuscript should be returned immediately to the editor.  
7. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other persons, bearing in mind that compliantly that the reviewer own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper and any manuscript submitted concurrently to other journals.
8. A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.
9. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.
10. A reviewer should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration.
11. The review of submitted manuscript may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, from a reviewer.
Total Numbers of Visitors 1142265
CopyRight: Tianjin Press of Chinese Herbal Medicines
Address:308# An-shan West Road,Nankai District,Tianjin 300193,China
Tel:+86-22-23006901 Fax::+86-22-23006821 E_mail:chm@tiprpress.com
津备案:津ICP备13000267号 互联网药品信息服务资格证书编号:(津)-非经营性-2015-0031