Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Introduction

The Journal of Addiction Therapy and Research (JATR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to preventing publication malpractice. This statement is based on the guidelines and best practices set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial board of JATR ensures impartial evaluation and ethical publication by adhering to the following responsibilities:

• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to addiction therapy and research.
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts during and after the review process.
• Avoid conflicts of interest and recuse from handling manuscripts in which personal or professional interests exist.
• Ensure that peer review is objective, fair, and timely.
• Take decisive action when ethical concerns arise, including corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.

Editors must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts in their own research without explicit written consent from the author(s).

Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to uphold ethical conduct in all aspects of their research and publication:

• Submit only original work that has not been published or under consideration elsewhere.
• Acknowledge all sources appropriately and avoid plagiarism or redundant publication.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, funding sources, and ethical approvals.
• Ensure accurate authorship representation – only those who contributed substantially to the research are listed as authors.
• Provide supporting data or supplementary materials when requested for verification purposes.

Authors found guilty of scientific misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) will be subject to corrective measures, including manuscript rejection or retraction.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining quality and integrity. They are required to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit and relevance.
• Maintain confidentiality of all materials under review.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest or inability to review objectively.
• Provide constructive, respectful, and timely feedback.
• Report suspected plagiarism, unethical practices, or data falsification to the editor.

Reviewers are expected to decline review invitations if they lack sufficient expertise or face time constraints.

Publisher’s Responsibilities

Heighten Science Publications Inc., as the publisher of JATR, ensures that all editorial processes align with international ethical standards. The publisher supports editors in managing ethical issues and upholds the integrity of the academic record through:

• Providing independent editorial decision-making.
• Safeguarding intellectual property and author rights.
• Implementing COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
• Maintaining transparency in pricing, peer review, and open access policies.

Plagiarism and Data Integrity

All manuscripts are checked using reliable plagiarism detection tools (e.g., iThenticate) before peer review. Manuscripts exceeding 15% similarity without proper citation are returned to authors for revision. Repeated offenses may lead to blacklisting of the authors.

• Fabrication or falsification of data constitutes scientific misconduct.
• Image manipulation, duplicate publication, and unauthorized reuse are strictly prohibited.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that may bias their work. Such disclosures are published alongside the article when relevant.

Examples include funding from pharmaceutical companies, consultancies, employment relationships, or intellectual property interests. Failure to disclose may result in article withdrawal or retraction.

Research Ethics and Human/Animal Welfare

JATR requires that all research involving humans or animals adhere to ethical standards and obtain appropriate institutional approvals:

• Human studies must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision).
• Animal studies must follow international guidelines for humane treatment.
• Authors must include ethics committee approval numbers and informed consent statements in manuscripts.

Handling Publication Misconduct

When ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct are raised, the editorial office follows COPE flowcharts for transparent investigation. Possible outcomes include:

• Correction or erratum for minor issues.
• Expression of concern for ongoing investigations.
• Retraction for confirmed misconduct with clear statement of reasons.

The integrity of the scholarly record takes precedence over reputational considerations.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, or readers may lodge ethical complaints or appeals regarding editorial decisions. Complaints should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher’s Ethics Committee at [email protected].

All complaints are reviewed confidentially, fairly, and promptly, with resolutions documented and communicated to involved parties.

Data Availability and Transparency

Authors are encouraged to deposit datasets and code in open repositories and include persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs) in manuscripts. Data-sharing enhances reproducibility and transparency in addiction research.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)