Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The goal of the journal is to create a space of high-quality public communication for scientists specializing in the problems of clinical pharmacology, biopharmacy, pharmacoeconomics, preclinical and clinical studies of drugs.

The pages of the journal «Clinical Pharmacy» highlight the results of the activities of domestic and world scientific community in the field of medicine and pharmacy, in particular the main problems of clinical pharmacology, biopharmacy, pharmacoeconomics, laboratory diagnostics, pharmaceutical care, preclinical and clinical study of new drugs in the form of original, review works and letters to the editor.

 

Section Policies

Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy

Editors
  • Igor Zupanets
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Clinical trials

Editors
  • Igor Zupanets
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Pre-clinical studies of new drugs

Editors
  • Inna Otrishko
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Pharmacokinetics

Editors
  • Igor Zupanets
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Modern informational technology in medicine

Editors
  • Larysa Iakovlieva
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Organizational and educational aspects of clinical pharmacy

Editors
  • Larysa Iakovlieva
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Pharmacoeconomics

Editors
  • Larysa Iakovlieva
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Laboratory diagnostics

Editors
  • Inna Otrishko
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Pharmaceutical care

Editors
  • Igor Zupanets
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The scientific journal “Management, economics and quality assurance in pharmacy” is peer reviewed journal that practices the selection of manuscripts for publication on the basis of their evaluation by independent reviewers through the use of a double, blind type of review (authors do not know the names of reviewers, reviewers are unknown names of authors manuscript).

Blind review procedure passes all manuscripts after checking for plagiarism, which came to the editor. The review is carried out in order to objectively evaluate the content of the scientific article, determine its compliance with the requirements of the journal, a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the material of the article, the introduction of specific recommendations for their improvement, as well as the selection of original copyright manuscripts for publication. Only those articles that have a scientific value, the direction of research by the theme of “Management, economics and quality assurance in pharmacy” are accepted for publication, and they help to solve actual problems and problems. Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and provide recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation.

Basic requirements for reviewing manuscripts

Manuscripts that have been pre-evaluated by executive secretaries of the publication (and/or column editors) for compliance with the requirements of the journal to the structure, content and design, plagiarism checking are selected for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet accepted requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration, as reported by their authors.

Reviewers for manuscripts elect editorial staff from among authors and readers, scientists who are competent in the issues of the publication, or members of the editorial board, provided there is no conflict of interest in the subject matter of the manuscript, which work on a voluntary and royalty-free basis.

Reviewers are required to participate in the review process, both from the editorial board and not from it, necessarily competent in the research problem.

Scientists are selected as reviewers whose subjects correspond to the profile of the publication, and the scientific metrics are corresponding with paragraph 6 of the Order of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine No. 32 dated January 15, 2018.

The deadline for the review is up to 2 weeks after the appointment of the reviewer.

The review process is carried out in the form of a closed questionnaire survey of reviewers on the journal’s website and, if necessary, the reviewer can download the file with an extended review and interpretation of the comments.

During peer review process, the reviewer evaluates the manuscript in terms of the aspects described in the review, may give a textual comment to the manuscript or make a version of the manuscript with suggested edits for editorial staff.

Upon completion of peer review process, a copy of the reviews is sent to the author of the e-mail from journal  website for revision and to executive  secretary. The names of reviewers are not disclosed.

After passing the peer review process, the reviewer may decide on the recommendation: the manuscript for publication without revision; publication of the manuscript after eliminating minor remarks (grammatical and stylistic errors, drawing drawings and tables, drawing up of an attachment bibliography, etc.); the manuscript for publication after finalizing the serious comments of the reviewer and following the repeat review process; rejection of the manuscript. The rejection of the manuscript is possible in the case: the subject does not correspond to the direction of journal; there is no scientific novelty, theoretical and practical value; unreliable and unreasonable results of the research are presented; the text of the manuscript was previously published, and so on.

Manuscripts sent to the author for removal of serious comments, after being re-submitted to the editor, are sent to the reviewer who reviewed the original version of the manuscript for the repeat review procedure.

In the event of a conflict between the author and the reviewer and the impossibility of removing the comments, the editor may decide on the appointment of a peer review procedure for the manuscript with the involvement of another reviewer.
The final decision on the publication of the manuscript is taken by the editorial board and approved by the Academic Council of the National Pharmaceutical University.

Responsibility for the violation of copyright and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article rests with the author of the article. The author and reviewer are responsible for the reliability of the facts and data presented, the validity of the conclusions drawn and recommendations and the scientific and practical level of the articles.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal is published four times per year.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal is practicing an open access policy in accordance with the Budapest BOAI Initiative (http//www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org), which provides authors and readers with the right to read, download, copy, distribute materials of journal, as well as to find or attach them to full texts of relevant articles, use for indexing and use for other legitimate purposes in the absence of financial, legal and technical barriers, with the exception of those governing direct access to the network internet.

 

Editorial ethics of the edition

The scientific journal «Clinical Pharmacy» adheres to recognized standards of publishing ethics. The following editorial policy of «Clinical Pharmacy» is guided by the recommendations of the International Committee for Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics – SORE – http://publicationethics.org), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE (recommendations of the «Vancouver Group») – http://www.icmje.org/), World Association of Medical Editors (World Association of Medical Editors – WAME – http://www.wame.org/), Directory of Open Access Journals – DOAJ – https://doaj.org).

Ethical principles (responsibility) of the editor

The editor is responsible for the publication of copyright works, which leads to the need to comply with the following basic principles:

- the editor has the authority to accept (reject) manuscripts;

- the editor should not have a conflict of interest in relation to articles accepted (rejected) for publication;

- the editor accepts the article only when there is complete confidence in this decision;

- when finding errors, the editor contributes to the publication of the corrected article;

- the editor has no right without the written consent of the Author to use in his own research unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript. Confidential information or ideas obtained during the review should not be disclosed by the editor or used by him for the personal aim;

- when making a decision on the manuscript publication, the editor is guided by the accuracy of the data presented and the scientific significance of the work;

- the editor should evaluate the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, social status or political preferences of the authors;

- the editor should not allow the publication of information if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it is plagiarized;

- the editor, together with the publisher, should not leave unanswered claims regarding the reviewed manuscripts or published materials, and also take all necessary measures to restore the violated rights when a conflict situation is discovered;

- the editor may be guided by the editorial policy of the journal, the decisions of the editorial board of the journal, being limited by the applicable legal rules relating to libel, copyright and plagiarism;

- the editor and the Editorial Board of the journal are obliged not to disclose, without the need for, information about the accepted manuscript to anyone, except for those directly involved in the process of its consideration.

 

Ethical principles (responsibility) of the reviewer

The reviewer carries out a scientific examination of copyright materials, as a result of which his actions should be objective in nature, consisting in the observance of the following principles:

- the reviewer is obliged to give an objective and reasoned assessment of the stated research results; personal criticism of the author is not allowed,

- the reviewer should not have a conflict of interests regarding the research, authors or research sponsors;

- in case of a conflict of interest between the research results and the reviewer's personal work, or in the case of such professional or personal ties between the reviewer and the author that may affect the reviewer's judgment, he must return the manuscript indicating the conflict of interest;

- the reviewer must indicate relevant published works that are not referenced in the manuscript;

- review of the manuscript should be confidential;

- a manuscript received for reviewing should be considered as a confidential document that cannot be transferred for review or discussion to third parties who do not have the powers of the editorial board;

- a reviewer who does not possess, in his opinion, sufficient qualifications to evaluate the manuscript, or cannot be objective, for example, in the event of a conflict of interest with the author or organization, should inform the editorial board of this with a request to exclude him from the review process of this manuscript;

- the reviewer's aim is to assess objectively the quality of the submitted manuscript and determine the degree of its compliance with scientific, literary and ethical standards;

- to ensure the right of each author to intellectual property, the reviewer is prohibited from using any of the arguments and conclusions of the author without the permission of the latter;

- the seriousness of the charges of plagiarism requires that the reviewer adequately and reasonably substantiate his own comments. Any allegation of plagiarism or inappropriate citation should be accompanied by an appropriate reference (the reviewer's conclusions should not be slanderous or defamatory for the author without good reasons for this);

- if the reviewer has doubts about plagiarism, authorship or the accuracy of the data, he must necessarily go to the editorial board with a requirement for a collective review of the author’s version of the manuscript;

- since the reviewer should note any cases of insufficient citation by the authors of the works of other scientists working in the field of the article under review, comments about the insufficient citation of the reviewer's own research are identified as biased;

- maintaining a constant frequency of publication of a scientific journal requires the reviewer to have a high level of his own discipline, revealed through the timeliness of providing a manuscript review and in respectful attitude to the authors of the manuscript (in case of bad manners regarding the authors or systematically providing poor quality reviews or violation of the terms of the review the reviewer is terminated);

- if a reviewer is banned from using or disclosing unpublished information or the author's arguments, it is not considered contradictory to ethical standards to discontinue some of the reviewer's own research if they, in his opinion, become fruitless.

Ethical principles (responsibility) of the author

The author (or a group of authors) is aware that he is initially responsible for the novelty and reliability of the results of scientific research, and assumes the observance of the following principles:

- an author who has publications in a journal can participate in the process of reviewing the manuscripts of other authors;

- all authors should contribute to the study, that is, the participation of all authors in the study and in the preparation of the article should be determined; co-authors of the article should indicate all persons who have made a significant contribution to the study. Among co-authors it is inadmissible to indicate persons who did not participate in the study;

- it is necessary to acknowledge the contribution of all persons who in one way or another influenced the course of the research, in particular, the article should contain references to the works that were relevant during the study;

- all authors must provide refutation or correction of errors in the event of their identification; if significant errors or inaccuracies are found in the article at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, the author should inform the editorial office of the journal as soon as possible;

- the author must provide reliable results of the research. Obviously false or false statements are unacceptable;

- the author must not submit to the journal a manuscript that has been sent and / or published in another edition;

- the author must ensure that the results of the study presented in this manuscript are completely original. Borrowed fragments or statements must be made out with the obligatory indication of the author and the original source. Excessive borrowing, as well as plagiarism in any form, including decorated quotes, paraphrasing, or the assignment of rights to the results of other people's research, are unethical and unacceptable.