Advanced Drug Sciences (ADS) operates under a structured editorial governance framework to ensure integrity, transparency, accountability, and scientific rigor in all aspects of the publication process. The journal adheres to internationally recognized standards, including those established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

1. Editorial Structure

• Editor-in-Chief (EIC): Provides overall editorial leadership, defines journal scope and policy, and holds ultimate responsibility for final editorial decisions.
• Co–Editor-in-Chief (Co-EIC): Supports the Editor-in-Chief in strategic and operational editorial management. The Co-EIC may oversee specific subject areas, manage peer review processes, and make editorial decisions within assigned domains. In cases where the Co-EIC handles a manuscript independently, decisions are made with full editorial authority. Complex or disputed cases may be resolved in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.
• Associate/Handling Editors: Manage the peer review process, assign reviewers, and provide recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief or Co-EIC.
• Editorial Board Members: Provide subject expertise, support peer review, and contribute to journal development.
• Managing Editor / Editorial Office: Oversees manuscript processing, communication, and production coordination.

2. Editorial Decision Authority

• Final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
• The Co–Editor-in-Chief is authorized to make independent editorial decisions within assigned subject areas or delegated responsibilities.
• In cases of disagreement or complex editorial matters, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief.
• All editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope, independent of commercial or financial considerations.

2. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher, sponsors, or any commercial interests. Decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

3. Peer Review Governance

• The journal employs a double-blind peer review system.
• At least two independent reviewers are typically assigned to each manuscript.
• Editors retain full responsibility for final decisions.
• Additional reviewers may be consulted in cases of conflicting evaluations.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

• Ensure fair, unbiased, and timely evaluation of all submissions.
• Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities.
• Disclose and manage conflicts of interest.
• Uphold ethical standards in research and publication.
• Address allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE guidelines.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

• Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
• Declare any conflicts of interest prior to review.
• Complete reviews within agreed timelines.
• Report ethical concerns, including plagiarism or data irregularities.

6. Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence the evaluation of a manuscript. Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist.

7. Publication Ethics and Misconduct

• All submissions are screened for plagiarism and ethical compliance.
• Research involving humans or animals must comply with relevant ethical standards.
• Cases of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication) are handled according to COPE procedures.

8. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

The journal will issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern where necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Transparency and Accountability

• Editorial policies are publicly available and regularly updated.
• Peer review processes are clearly described.
• Decisions are documented and traceable.

10. Reviewer and Editorial Recognition

• Reviewers may receive acknowledgment and certificates upon request.
• Editorial contributions are recognized on the journal website.
• Reviewer contributions may be recorded through recognized platforms.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned request to the editorial office. Complaints regarding editorial processes or ethical concerns will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.