Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
1. Purpose and fundamental principles
Novel Approaches in Pharmacy (NAP) is a scientific, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by the Faculty of Pharmacy at Erciyes University. The journal upholds the principles of integrity, impartiality, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, scientific validity, and protection of participants’ rights in research and publication processes.
The journal’s ethics policy is implemented on the basis of the TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin Journal Evaluation Criteria, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, and the relevant national and international regulations according to the nature of the research. The journal protects editorial independence and does not allow commercial, personal, or institutional interests to influence editorial decisions.
These rules are binding on all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and the publisher. In cases of suspected ethical violations, COPE flowcharts and the relevant legislation are followed.
2. Compliance with research and publication ethics
Studies submitted to the journal must be original and must not involve fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, salami slicing, inappropriate authorship, biased selection of references, unauthorized use of data, or other violations of research and publication ethics.
Authors declare that they have complied with applicable national legislation, institutional rules, and relevant international ethical principles in conducting and reporting their studies. Authors bear full responsibility for compliance with research ethics; however, this does not remove the journal’s responsibility to investigate, request documentation, and take the necessary action.
3. Ethics committee approval and mandatory ethical declarations
3.1. Studies requiring ethics committee approval
The following studies are subject to prior review by the competent ethics committee according to their nature and the applicable legislation; where approval is required, it must be obtained before the research begins and before data are collected for research purposes:
· Clinical, interventional, or observational research involving human participants;
· quantitative or qualitative research in which data are collected from humans through questionnaires, scales, interviews, focus groups, observation, experiments, and similar methods;
· studies using human biological materials, tissues, samples, images, records, or identifiable personal/health data;
· retrospective research using personal data;
· research involving experimental animals and studies of animal-derived materials requiring ethics committee permission;
· other studies requiring ethics committee review under the relevant legislation or institutional policy.
For studies requiring ethics committee approval, the committee’s full name, the date of the decision, and the decision/protocol number must be clearly stated in the Materials and Methods section of the article. The approval document must be uploaded to the system at the time of submission. Information that could reveal identity in the reviewer copy is temporarily masked for blinded peer review; complete documentation and information are submitted to the editorial office and restored in the final version to be published.
Obtaining ethics committee approval retroactively after research requiring approval has begun is not accepted. In retrospective research, approval must be obtained before past routine records are reviewed and used for research purposes, rather than before those records were originally created. The editorial office may verify the authenticity of the document with the institution that granted approval. Studies for which ethics committee approval was required but not obtained, was obtained from an inappropriate committee, or was not documented will not be considered for evaluation.
3.2. Studies not requiring ethics committee approval
For research not requiring ethics committee approval, such as reviews that do not involve human or animal research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses using published aggregate data, discussion papers, and molecular modeling studies conducted solely in a computer environment, the absence of a requirement for approval must be explained together with the reason. In the secondary use of individual participant data, biological materials, or publicly available datasets, the requirement for approval is assessed by considering the nature of the data, their potential for re-identification, and the relevant rules; public availability alone does not confer exemption. Where necessary, a letter from the competent committee confirming exemption or that approval is not required must be provided.
3.3. Informed consent and privacy
Voluntary written informed consent appropriate to the nature of the research must be obtained from human participants or their legal representatives. The Materials and Methods section must state that consent was obtained. For children, persons with limited decision-making capacity, and other vulnerable groups, representative consent in accordance with the relevant legislation and, where possible, participant assent must be obtained. A waiver of consent or an alternative consent method is accepted only with the approval of the competent ethics committee and within the framework of the applicable rules; the rationale and scope of this decision must be explained in the manuscript.
For case reports and publications containing photographs, images, videos, clinical information, or pedigree information that could identify an individual, separate written consent for publication must be obtained. Identifying information must not be published unnecessarily; anonymization must be carried out to the greatest extent possible without compromising scientific value.
3.4. Institutional, material, and third-party permissions
If permission from the institution where the research is conducted is required, it must be obtained before the relevant research activities begin and must be declared in the manuscript. Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permissions for the use/publication of scales, questionnaires, datasets, software, photographs, figures, tables, or other copyrighted materials belonging to others.
Permission details must be stated in the manuscript and provided to the editorial office upon request. Institutional permission does not replace ethics committee approval.
4. Research involving humans, animals, and biological materials
Research involving humans must comply with the current principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trials that prospectively assign participants to a health intervention must be registered in a WHO-recognized primary registry or on https://clinicaltrials.gov before the first participant is enrolled; the registry, registration date, and registration number must be provided in the manuscript. Late registration does not meet the prospective registration requirement; its justification and any editorial explanation concerning its consideration for evaluation must be transparently reported. Ethics committee approval does not replace trial registration.
Animal experiments must be conducted in accordance with national legislation, the decision of the relevant institutional animal experimentation ethics committee, and animal welfare principles.
Studies must be presented in accordance with the ARRIVE 2.0 reporting guidelines; the animal species, experimental procedures, approach to anesthesia/euthanasia, and measures taken to reduce pain must be reported with sufficient clarity. The principles of considering alternatives to animal use, reducing the number of animals used, and refining procedures (the 3Rs) must be observed.
In experimental research involving plant material, species identification, the source of the samples, and, where possible, a herbarium voucher specimen and the herbarium/collection number must be reported. Relevant national legislation and applicable international regulations concerning endangered species, genetic resources, and traditional knowledge must be complied with.
Agents posing biosafety risks, recombinant DNA, gene editing, toxic substances, or procedures involving unusual hazards must be clearly identified; the necessary institutional permissions and safety measures must be stated.
5. Reporting of studies and data integrity
Research must be reported accurately, completely, and with sufficient clarity to allow the methods to be replicated and the results to be evaluated. Depending on the type of study, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, ARRIVE, STARD, CHEERS, or an appropriate reporting guideline listed by the EQUATOR Network must be used.
Data must be genuine and original; selective reporting, inappropriate exclusion of data, misleading alterations to images, or statistical procedures that do not support the results must not be employed. Only technical adjustments applied to the entire image that do not alter the meaning of the data may be made to images. Any cropping, combining, or rearrangement must be explicitly stated. The editorial office may request raw images, instrument outputs, analysis code, protocols, laboratory records, or other supporting data.
6. Originality, plagiarism, and similarity screening
All submitted articles are scanned using appropriate plagiarism detection software. Uncited overlap, necessary technical expressions in the methods section, overlap with the author’s previous work, extensive quotation from a single source, and the type of study are evaluated together. Screening may be repeated at any stage of the review and production
process. The software used, the scope of screening, and exclusion settings are recorded in the editorial record; a low similarity rate is not proof of the absence of plagiarism.
Plagiarism, the use of ideas/data/figures without attribution, and claiming the results of others as one’s own are not accepted. An author’s reuse of their own text is examined in terms of its extent, the section in which it appears, citation, and copyright conditions. Presenting previous data as new results or substantial repetition with the source concealed is not accepted. Regardless of the level of similarity, the editorial office may reject a submission that raises ethical concerns and may request an explanation, correction, or source file. Violations identified after publication may result in correction, retraction, or notification of the relevant institutions in accordance with COPE principles.
7. Simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, and preprints
A manuscript may not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time. A study that has previously been published or accepted for publication may not be republished except under permitted conditions for secondary publication. Related studies produced from the same dataset must be disclosed at submission and provided to the editorial office. Artificial division of research results (salami slicing/salami publication) is not accepted. Secondary publication must meet ICMJE conditions, including approval from the editors of the relevant journals, explicit citation of the first publication, and identification of its secondary nature.
Academic theses, conference abstracts, and versions published on preprint servers are not automatically considered duplicate publications; however, they must be fully disclosed at submission, appropriately cited, and comply with copyright/license conditions. The status of the preprint must be updated following acceptance and publication of the manuscript.
8. Authorship and contribution statement
Authorship is limited to individuals who meet all four of the following ICMJE criteria:
1. Substantial contribution to the design of the study or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
2. drafting the text or critically revising it for its scientific content;
3. approving the final version to be published;
4. agreeing to be accountable for ensuring that questions concerning the accuracy and integrity of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Contributors who do not meet all of these criteria must be listed in the Acknowledgments section with their permission. Gift, honorary, coerced, or ghost authorship is not accepted. All manuscripts must include an Author Contribution Statement consistent with the CRediT taxonomy. The corresponding author ensures that all authors have approved the submission and the final version, that they have agreed to the order of authors, and that their contact information is accurate. CRediT roles enable contributions to be described; they do not, on their own, confer authorship. Excluding individuals who meet the authorship criteria from the author list is also not accepted.
After submission, the addition or removal of an author or a change in author order may be made only with the written consent of all authors, including those being added or removed, a reason for
the change, and the editor’s approval. Changes in authorship after acceptance are considered only in exceptional circumstances. Institutions are responsible for resolving authorship disputes; the editorial office may suspend evaluation where necessary. Approved changes after publication are entered into the scientific record through a correction notice where necessary.
9. Funding and conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose all financial and in-kind support provided for the study, the name of the funder, the project number, and the funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, writing, and the decision to publish.
All authors must declare financial relationships, consultancies, patent/license rights, institutional or corporate affiliations, personal/academic competition, and other interests that could affect the study. If there is no conflict of interest, the statement “The authors declare that they have no
conflicts of interest.” must also be used.
Editors and reviewers must also disclose potential conflicts of interest without delay and withdraw from manuscripts they cannot evaluate impartially. A study authored by an editor or an editorial board member is evaluated through an independent editorial process in which the person concerned cannot access the process or make decisions; this is disclosed in the published article.
10. Use of artificial intelligence and automated tools
Generative artificial intelligence or large language model tools cannot be listed as authors or assume authorship responsibilities. The use of these tools in manuscript preparation, including text generation, translation, or language editing, must be disclosed in the cover letter and on the title page of the manuscript. The tool’s name, version if available, date of use, purpose, and scope of use must be stated. Use in coding, data analysis, or as part of the research method must be described in the Materials and Methods section in sufficient detail to ensure reproducibility. Standard non-generative spell-checking and reference management tools do not require a separate declaration.
Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, potential bias, and intellectual property compliance of AI-assisted content. Unverified references, fabricated data, or misleading images may not be used. Images generated or substantially modified using artificial intelligence may not be used as primary evidence representing scientific data; where their use is permitted, they must be clearly labeled.
Editors and reviewers may not upload manuscripts that have not been evaluated, or sections involving personal privacy or data confidentiality, to artificial intelligence systems whose confidentiality is not assured. Artificial intelligence cannot assume responsibility for an editorial decision or a reviewer’s opinion. Editors and reviewers may not use artificial intelligence tools for evaluation unless the journal has explicitly permitted them; where use is permitted, they must disclose its scope to the editorial office and independently verify the outputs.
11. Peer review process and reviewer’s responsibilities
The journal conducts double-blind peer review. Research articles, reviews, and other scientific papers to be published as peer-reviewed content are evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the field after passing preliminary editorial evaluation. If opinions conflict, a third reviewer’s opinion may be sought, or the editor may make a decision on scientific grounds.
The final decision rests with the editor. The nature of content not subject to peer review, such as editorials and announcements, is clearly indicated.
During preliminary evaluation, scope, scientific adequacy, compliance with author guidelines, similarity, and mandatory documents are checked. Incomplete submissions may be returned for correction; studies deemed scientifically or ethically unsuitable are rejected with reasons. The title page containing author identities is submitted separately; the main text, file properties, and supplementary materials are prepared in accordance with blinded peer review.
The decision is communicated as acceptance, minor/major revision, or rejection. Authors respond to reviewer and editor comments point by point, explain their scientific reasons for disagreeing with any suggestions, and submit a version showing the changes within the specified period. Additional time may be requested with justification; the author is notified before submissions are closed due to a lack of response. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Special issues and manuscripts handled by guest editors are subject to the same scientific and ethical criteria; manuscripts involving a conflict of interest for the guest editor are handled independently. The editor-in-chief is also responsible for the integrity of the process in special issues.
Reviewers must:
· accept only manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and that they can evaluate within the required time;
· provide objective, scientific, respectful, and reasoned evaluations;
· keep the manuscript, data, and correspondence confidential and not share them with third parties or use them in their own work without permission;
· decline the assignment and inform the editor if they have a conflict of interest;
· confidentially report to the editor any suspicion of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data/image manipulation, or another ethical concern;
· not impose unnecessary self-citations or citations to specific sources;
· not retain a copy of the manuscript after completing the evaluation.
Reviewer opinions and decision records are securely archived in accordance with the journal’s retention policy.
12. Editor’s responsibilities and editorial independence
Editors evaluate manuscripts on the basis of scientific merit, originality, methodological adequacy, and relevance to the journal’s scope, irrespective of the authors’ identity, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political views, institution, or other personal characteristics.
Editors:
· conduct a fair, timely, and confidential evaluation process;
· select independent reviewers with appropriate expertise and consider potential conflicts of interest;
· do not use unpublished content without the author’s permission;
· examine allegations of ethical violations through an evidence-based process that gives the parties the right to respond;
· issue an appropriate correction, expression of concern, or retraction when an error or violation is identified;
· make decisions independently of pressure from the publisher, institutions, or funders;
· ensure that reviewer recommendations and citation requests are based on scientific grounds.
Editors’ own work, the work of close collaborators, or submissions giving rise to conflicts of interest are handled by an independent editor.
13. Publisher’s responsibilities
The Faculty of Pharmacy at Erciyes University protects the integrity of the journal’s scientific records and its editorial independence and does not allow commercial or institutional influences to interfere with publication decisions. The publisher cooperates with the editorial office in ethical investigations and post-publication actions and supports permanent access to, and appropriate archiving of, published content.
The journal’s ownership, management, contact details, peer review model, access and licensing conditions, fee policy, publication frequency, and archiving method are clearly announced on the journal’s website.
14. Allegations of ethical violations, complaints, and appeals
An allegation of an ethical violation concerning a published study or one under evaluation may be submitted to the journal’s editorial office together with evidence and contact details. The editorial office respects the rights, confidentiality, and presumption of innocence of the whistleblower and the individuals against whom allegations have been made. Anonymous submissions may be examined if they contain sufficient and verifiable evidence. Submissions are made through the editorial office address on the journal’s official contact page or through the manuscript submission system. If the complaint concerns the editor-in-chief, the process is conducted by a board member with no conflict of interest or an independent official designated by the publisher.
The investigation is conducted in accordance with COPE guidance; explanations and raw data may be requested from authors, and institutions or relevant journals may be contacted confidentially. The editorial office does not replace institutional investigations of research misconduct; however, it makes the publication decisions necessary to protect the scientific record.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions once within 30 days of notification of the decision by submitting their scientific reasons and any supporting evidence. The appeal is examined by an editor or board independent of the person who made the original decision and free from conflicts of interest; the outcome is communicated to the author together with the reasons. This time limit and limit on the number of appeals do not apply to reports concerning research and publication ethics that contain new evidence. Criticism or an appeal alone cannot constitute grounds for rejecting a submission.
15. Correction, retraction, and protection of the scientific record
Authors must immediately inform the editorial office when they become aware of a significant error after evaluation or publication and must cooperate in any necessary correction or retraction.
A corresponding author who wishes to withdraw a submission before publication must submit a reasoned request to the editorial office with the knowledge and approval of all authors. The editorial office records the request and provides written notification of the status of the submission. A withdrawal request does not automatically terminate an ethical investigation that has already begun. For published articles, correction and retraction rules apply instead of withdrawal of the submission.
A correction is published for errors that affect the scientific record but do not invalidate the study’s main conclusions; an expression of concern is published for serious but unresolved concerns; and a retraction is published for errors or ethical violations that render the results unreliable. Notices explain the reason, are reciprocally linked to the original article, and preserve an accessible scientific record. As a rule, a retracted article remains accessible; the PDF and abstract page are clearly marked “Retracted.” In exceptional circumstances where the content must legally be removed or its continued availability causes serious harm, a bibliographic record explaining the reason for restricting access is retained. Retraction is not contingent on the authors’ approval; their views are sought, and any disagreement is explained in the notice. Record updates, such as changes to an author’s name or institution, are considered with due regard for privacy and the integrity of the scientific record.
16. Mandatory ethical declarations and documents at submission
Each manuscript should include the following information, where applicable:
· Ethics Committee Approval: Committee name, date, and decision/protocol number, or a statement that approval is not required;
· Informed Consent: Participant/representative consent, any committee-approved waiver of consent, and details of consent for publication if required;
· Author Contributions: Contributions according to CRediT roles;
· Conflicts of Interest: Declaration of their presence/absence;
· Financial Support: Funder, project number, and role, or a declaration that no support was received;
· Declaration of AI Use: Whether AI was used; if used, the tool, date, purpose, and scope;
· Acknowledgments: Contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria and their permissions.
The submission must also include the ethics committee document (if required), author contribution and conflict of interest forms, declarations concerning the necessary permission/consent documents, and the copyright/license form specified by the journal. The editorial office may request additional documents according to the nature of the manuscript. Submissions containing incomplete or contradictory ethical information are returned to the author before evaluation or rejected.
Participants’ signed consent forms are not routinely uploaded to an open system; they are securely retained by the authors and made available for editorial verification through a secure channel only when necessary.
17. Fee Policy
No fees are charged to authors or institutions under any circumstances. No fees are requested for manuscripts submitted for publication in our journal.
18. Principal reference standards and policies compared
· TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin Journal Evaluation Criteria and explanations regarding ethics committee permissions
· Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Core Practices and flowcharts
· International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals
· World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki
· ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines
· EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines