Frontiers in Medicinal Chemistry and Drug Discovery

Publication Ethics

Premier Publisher’s follows certain ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. Premier Publisher’s is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.

An “author” is someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. Authors are required to meet ALL of the following criteria:

  1. Should carefully follow instructions for manuscript preparation, and ensure that the manuscript is proofread before submission. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the author instructions will not be considered for review. Careless preparation of a manuscript suggests careless execution of the research and therefore makes acceptance unlikely. Manuscripts are scanned for plagiarism using the latest software; if potential plagiarism is detected, the editors will contact the authors for clarification, and may also contact the authors’ institution.
  2. Avoid Citation Manipulation.
  3. Avoid Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication.
  4. Should submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author's contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgement.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest.
  6. Avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on in the planning of aresearch project who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
  7. Have made a substantial contribution to the concept and design, acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data
  8. Draft article or revised it critically for important intellectual content approved the version to be published.
  9. Should inform journals if they discover errors in published work.
  10. Authors should meet the conditions of all of the points above. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.


Reviewers are required to meet ALL of the following criteria:

  1. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
  2. Be critical. It is easier for an editor to overturn very critical comments than to overturn favorable comments.
  3. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they
  4. have the authors’ permission.
  5. It is a professional honor to be invited to review a scientific manuscript as part of the peer review process. Please take this job seriously. The journal’s reputation depends in part on this peer review process.
  6. All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).
  7. It is important to ensure that the subject of the manuscript is within your purview of expertise. Thus, if you are not an expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript, it would probably be best if you declined an opportunity to review a manuscript.
  8. All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.
  9. Read the abstract first to see if what the authors are stating makes logical sense, and if it is written in a way that is comprehensible. Some manuscripts involve excellent work and interesting observations, but they are so poorly written that it is difficult to understand what the author is saying. This is a relatively common problem with authors whose native language is not English. If the work reported in the manuscript looks interesting and/or valuable, the manuscript should be sent back for editing by a native English speaker or professional translator.
  10. Justify all criticisms by specific references to the text of the paper or to published literature. Vague criticisms are unhelpful.
  11. Be specific – refer to line numbers in the paper or to exact regions where you wish changes to occur.