INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMA GROWTH RESEARCH REVIEW

Aligned with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices
 

This statement sets out the ethical standards followed by International Journal of Pharma Growth Research Review for authors, reviewers, and editors, and describes how the journal identifies and handles publication malpractice. It is based on the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). By submitting to this journal, authors, reviewers, and editors agree to abide by this statement.

Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit, without bias based on authors' identity or affiliation. They keep submissions confidential, disclose and manage their own conflicts of interest, and take responsibility for correcting the published record when needed.

Reviewers treat manuscripts as confidential, review objectively without personal criticism, disclose any conflicts of interest, and alert editors to plagiarism, undisclosed overlap with other work, or ethical concerns.

Authors must present an accurate, original account of their work, properly cite the work of others, disclose funding and conflicts of interest, avoid submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously, and correct or retract published work if a significant error is found.

The journal treats the following as publication malpractice/misconduct: plagiarism; data fabrication or falsification; image manipulation; duplicate/redundant publication; undisclosed conflicts of interest; authorship disputes (including ghost, gift, or guest authorship); and manipulation of the peer review process.

1. A concern is raised (by a reader, reviewer, editor, or detected via plagiarism-screening software).
2. The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary assessment.
3. The corresponding author (and co-authors, where relevant) is contacted in writing and given a fair opportunity to respond.
4. The editor consults COPE flowcharts and the editorial board as needed, and may involve the authors' institution.
5. A decision is reached: no action, a correction, an Expression of Concern, or a retraction.
6. All submissions are screened using similarity-detection software before peer review and before publication.

A correction is issued when a small but significant part of an otherwise reliable publication is found to be misleading or inaccurate, typically due to honest error.

1. Erratum — corrects an error introduced by the journal during production.
2. Corrigendum — corrects an error made by the author(s), requested by the author(s).

Correction notices are linked to the original article, freely accessible, and clearly explain what was changed and why. The original article is not removed.

A retraction alerts readers that a publication's findings can no longer be relied upon. Grounds for retraction include:

1. Unreliable findings due to major error, data fabrication, or falsification
2. Plagiarism or redundant/duplicate publication
3. Unethical research (e.g., missing ethical approval or informed consent)
4. Compromised or fraudulent peer review
5. Undisclosed major conflict of interest that affected the findings

1. Concern is identified and assessed by the editor.
2. Authors are notified in writing and given an opportunity to respond.
3. The editor, in consultation with the editorial board, makes a final determination following COPE guidelines.
4. A retraction notice is published, linked to the original article, stating who retracted it and why.
5. The original article remains on the platform, clearly marked as 'RETRACTED', rather than being removed.

Retraction does not necessarily imply misconduct by the authors — where it results from honest error, the notice states this clearly.

Where evidence of misconduct is inconclusive, or an institutional investigation is ongoing, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern instead of an immediate retraction, to alert readers to the issue while it is being resolved.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, stating the grounds for appeal. Complaints regarding editorial or reviewer conduct may be sent to the journal's official editorial contact email and will be acknowledged. Unresolved matters may be referred to COPE for guidance.