Editorial Policies and Practices

I. Objective of the Journal

Advancement in Medicinal Plant Research (AMPR) is published by Net Journals. The mission of this journal is to significantly broaden the knowledge base of its readers and to do so the journal must focus on papers that fall within its scope.

II. Editorial Board

Advancement in Medicinal Plant Research comprises of Editors and Associate Editors who are appointed by the Publication Committee of Net Journals. Board members are chosen based on the journal’s need for representation from a particular scientific area in conjunction with the individual’s commitment to maintain high journal standards as illustrated in objective and prompt reviews.

An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the publication committee to directly assist the editors.

III. Review Process

All manuscripts must be submitted using the format outlined in the Instructions to Authors. The instructions are available online at www.netjournals.org/mpr_author_instruction.html.

The Advancement in Medicinal Plant Research editorial office policy requires each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. The editorial office contacts suitable reviewers in the field. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript they are given a ten days deadline to complete the review.

When the review is completed, the paper is sent back to the author to make necessary corrections. On their response, the revised manuscript is sent to the editorial board which then evaluates to determine if the authors have adequately addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers. Depending on this evaluation, manuscripts may either be accepted, returned for further revision following the editor’s correction or rejected based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the Editor’s opinion of the paper. In some cases, it is necessary to seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final decision. When the editor has completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter is sent to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on any manuscript must be made directly to the editorial office.

If a paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication office and prepared for the next available issue.

IV. Reasons for Rejecting a Manuscript

1. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal are returned to authors with significant comments describing the reason for the decision.

2. Manuscripts may be rejected if it is observed that the findings are not sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights, do not contain enough new information, or are too primary to merit publication.

V. Procedures

A. Obligations of Editors

1. Editors should give impartial consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

2. Editors should process manuscripts promptly.

3. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or reject it. The editor may consult with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.

4. Editors and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.

5. Editors should respect the intellectual independence of authors.

6. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be delegated to some other qualified person. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.

7. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

8. Unpublished information, arguments or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the permission of the author.

9. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are inaccurate, the editor should facilitate removal of the paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correct it.

B. Obligations of Authors

1. An author's central obligation is to provide a brief, accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

2. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information, to allow the author's peers to work further.

3. An author should cite those publications that have been important in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used without permission of the author of the work being used.

4. Fragmentation of research papers should be avoided. A scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each paper gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general study.

5. It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and unacceptable.

6. An author should make no changes to a paper after it has been accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make changes, the author is obligated to inform the editor directly of the nature of the desired change. Only the editor has the final authority to approve any such requested changes.

7. A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, personal criticism is not acceptable.

8. Only persons who have significantly contributed to the research should be listed as authors. The corresponding author attests that any others named as authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co-authorship should be included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as authors or co-authors. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.

C. Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1. Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editorial office.

3. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.

4. A reviewer should be sensitive even 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.

5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection with.

6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.

7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call the attention of the editorial office for any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper, or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

9. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the permission of the author.

10. Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within ten (10) days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they should contact the editorial office promptly so that authors can be kept informed and if necessary, assigned alternate reviewers.