The articles submitted to EJLS are evaluated with plagiarism detection. The articles with an overall similarity score higher than 25% are returned to the author by the editor. Also, if there are big matches with other sources that are included in the bibliography section, the articles are returned to the author by the editor. In some cases, the editor may suggest the author(s) revise their manuscript and submit again. 

In an ethically inappropriate situation, action is taken in line with international research and publication ethics. If financial support is received from any institution to conduct the study, the institution that supports the study must be stated in the article.

In studies where ethics committee approval is required, the name and ethics committee approval number of the institution for which ethics committee approval has been obtained should be specified in the material method section. It should also be added to the material and method section of the article that the protocols and procedures used are ethically reviewed and approved. If the studies requiring an ethics committee report are submitted without it, they will be rejected. Informed consent form must be taken in clinical studies on humans and should be stated in the material method section. All clinical trials should be carried out according to the Helsinki Declaration principles. For animal research, authors should indicate whether the procedures applied comply with the standards set out in the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” guide. All experimental research on plants should comply with international guidelines.

The authors' publications in EJLS are distributed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The license was developed to facilitate open access, namely, free immediate access to and unrestricted reuse of original works of all types. Under this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their publications, but grant JPharmTech a non-exclusive license to publish the work in paper form and allow anyone to reuse, distribute and reproduce the content as long as the original work is properly cited. Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original work. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers. For any reuse or distribution of a work, users must also make clear the license terms under which the work was published. The standard license will be applied to the authors' publications, which ensures the publications freely and openly available in perpetuity.

EJLS publishes fully open access journal, which means that all articles are available on the internet to all users immediately upon publication. All the original articles and review papers published in EJLS are free to access immediately from the date of publication. EJLS don’t charge any fees for any reader to download articles and reviews for their own scholarly use. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. Copyright of the layout and design of EJLS articles remains with the journal and cannot be used in other publications. EJLS also operates under the Creative Commons Licence CC-BY. All authors publishing with the EJLS accept these as the terms of publication.

Editors’ Responsibilities
EJLS Editors are obliged to be accountable for all kinds of procedures they engage within the context of publishing the journal. The editors should act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. The Editors should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors and to constantly improve the journal.
• The Editor should hold authors to a high standard with regard to the citation of appropriate literature, emphasizing the use of initial, peer-reviewed references whenever possible.
• The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal should be published.
• If one of the editors is an author in any manuscript, the editor is excluded from the manuscript evaluation process. In order to prevent any conflict of interest, the article evaluation process is carried out as double-blinded.
• The Editor may reject a manuscript if it is deemed to be (a) out of scope or format; (b) of poor quality; or (c) of inadequate significance.
• The Editor should endeavor to select reviewers who possess appropriate expertise and exercise sound judgment. All manuscripts are generally submitted to at least 2 independent reviewers. Supplementary material may be included to facilitate the review process. The Editor then should ensure that the reviewers understand their responsibilities, including those regarding confidentiality and the timely preparation of an unbiased review.
• The members of the Editorial Board are responsible for ensuring that the journal publishes high-quality research that falls within its scope and objectives.
• The members of the Editorial Board will usually be called upon for advice when there is disagreement among reviewers or between reviewers and authors, or when the editors feel that the manuscript has not received adequate consideration by the reviewers.
• The Editor should provide the corresponding author with a copy of the reviewers’ comments regarding a manuscript. Before forwarding a reviewer’s comments to an author, the Editor may delete any inappropriately harsh language or personal attacks included in the review.
• The Editor should correct errors in a manuscript if they are detected before publication or publish corrections if they are detected afterwards. All notices of correction or retraction must be published prominently in the journal in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia).
• The Editor should handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
• The Editor and the members of the Editorial Board must not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the authors of the paper, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• In the case where authors have a conflict of interest, the Editor may request that the authors include a statement to this effect in the manuscript before it can be reviewed or accepted for publication.
• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used in the own research of the Editor or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.
• The Editor should adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Journal where appropriate to give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
• The Editors will be guided by the COPE flowcharts if there is suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.
Reviewers’ Responsibilities
EJLS selects reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field of study, as well as their experience and reputation as researchers and scholars. Reviewers for EJLS are responsible for thoroughly evaluating manuscripts assigned in a timely and professional manner. This includes evaluating the research methodology, assessing the clarity and organization of the manuscript, identifying potential biases and limitations, and providing constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers are also expected to maintain confidentiality and to avoid conflicts of interest or bias in their evaluation of manuscripts. EJLS expects reviewers to provide constructive feedback to authors that is specific, actionable, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide feedback that is respectful, professional, and objective, and to avoid personal attacks or unconstructive criticism.
The roles of reviewers’
• A reviewer should provide written, unbiased, constructive feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work.
• A reviewer should indicate whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
• A reviewer should avoide personal comments or criticism.
• A reviewer should maintain the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.
• A reviewer should notify the Editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner.
• A reviewer should alert the Editor about any potential personal, financial or perceived conflict of interest and declining to review when a conflict exists.
• A reviewer should comply with the Editor’s written instructions on the Journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
• A reviewer should provide a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the Journal by the author.
• A reviewer should determine scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it.
• A reviewer should notice any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal that may be known to the reviewer.
• A reviewer should ensure that the methods and analysis are adequately detailed to allow the reader to judge the scientific merit of the study design and be able to replicate the study.
• A reviewer should ensure that the article cites relevant studies by other scientists.
The ethical responsibilities of reviewers’
• Material under review should not be shared or discussed with anyone outside the review process unless necessary and approved by the Editor.
• Reviewer comments should acknowledge the positive aspects of the material under review, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the improvements needed.
• A reviewer should explain and support his/ her judgment clearly enough that Editors and Authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that a previously reported observation or argument is accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the editor when he/she becomes aware of duplicate publication.
• A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the author.
• A reviewer who realizes that his/her expertise on the subject of the manuscript is limited has a responsibility to make their degree of competence clear to the Editor.
• Reviewer comments and conclusions should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. All comments by reviewers should be based solely on the paper’s scientific merit, originality, and quality of writing as well as on the relevance to the journal’s aim & scope, without regard to race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or citizenship of the authors.
• Potential reviewers who are concerned that they have a substantial conflict of interest should decline the request to review and/or discuss their concerns with the Editor.
• Reviewers are responsible for acting promptly, adhering to the instructions for completing a review, and submitting it in a timely manner.
Authors’ Responsibilities
To maintain the credibility and integrity of a research, all authors must follow the rules of good scientific practice and fulfil the following responsibilities:
• Authorship should be based on the four criteria recommended by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
• The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal during manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. The corresponding author should ensure that all authors are included in the paper, and that all authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the Editor(s).
• Author(s) should decide the order of authorship prior to writing the paper to avoid future conflicts.
• The individual contribution of each author to the paper should be declared in the Author Contribution section.
• Author(s) should not fabricate or manipulate the data.
• Author(s) should avoid plagiarism and give proper acknowledgment to other works.
• Author(s) should avoid ghost/gift/guest authorship.
• Author(s) should declare conflicts of interest.
• Author(s) should declare whether research work has been published or presented before.
• Author(s) should not submit the manuscript to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
• If author(s) detect a significant error or inaccuracy in their paper, they should promptly notify the Editor(s) about this error or inaccuracy. Author(s) should cooperate with the Editor(s) to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper where this is deemed necessary.
• Author(s) should get ethics committee approval for clinical and experimental studies on humans and animals that require an ethics committee decision. Author(s) should ensure that the paper contains a statement that all procedures have been carried out in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and have been approved by the appropriate institutional committee(s). This statement should contain the name of the institutional committee, the date and the reference number of the ethical approval(s).
• If the work involves the use of human subjects, author(s) should ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. The manuscript should be in line with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and aim for the inclusion of representative human populations (sex, age and ethnicity) as per those recommendations.
• For all studies that use human organs or tissues, authors should provide sufficient evidence that they have been procured in line with WHO Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation. The source of the organs or tissues used in clinical research should be transparent and traceable.
• All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be performed in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 and associated guidelines, EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments, or the National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the authors should clearly indicate in the paper that such guidelines have been followed. The sex of animals should be indicated, and where appropriate, the influence (or association) of sex on the results of the work.
• When uploading a revised version of the article, the corresponding author should submit “Responses to Reviewers” stating point by point how each issue raised by the reviewers has been addressed. Each change made in the main document should be highlighted with red color.
• After acceptance and plagiarism check, the corresponding author will receive an e-mail with a link to our proofing system, allowing annotation and correction of proofs. Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness and correctness of the text, tables and figures. Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the Editor(s).