Education Program Participation Ethics
CONTENT PROVIDER (SPEAKERS AND AUTHOR) RESPONSIBILITIES
General Information – PPAG crowd-sources its continuing pharmacy education and BCPPS recertification programs. Experts may be asked to submit proposals for live educational programs (conferences, meetings, webinars), textbook chapters, journal articles, and/or podcasts. Much like scientific publishing, crowd-sourcing provides an opportunity for the pediatric pharmacy audience to define their own educational needs and content. However, it also requires a rigorous peer-review process to maintain standards of merit and high quality.
General guidelines: Authorship of educational sessions or articles should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported work. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors in order of their contribution to the program, chapter, or article. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors, and agree to take responsibility for their own contributions.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All content providers of PPAG educational programs must disclose any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support must be disclosed.
Originality, Plagiarism, and Copyright: By submitting an educational program or manuscript the provider(s) warrant that the work is their own, original work and that the sources of any ideas and/or words that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and/or quotes. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles.
Website Information: Authors should print and retain information attributed to a specific website.
Recertification Advisory Committee Decision – Following peer review, the possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. If content provider(s) are encouraged to revise and resubmit a program, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected programs will not be re-reviewed.
Fundamental errors in published programs: When a content provider discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the provider’s obligation to promptly notify and cooperate with PPAG to retract or correct the work as needed.
CONTENT REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES
General Information: All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are content experts in the particular subject area.
Contribution to Decisions: Peer reviewers assist in making final acceptance/rejection decisions. Peer reviewers also assist content providers in improving the program(s). Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Recusal: Reviewers should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All reviewers of PPAG educational programs must disclose any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their review. All sources of financial support must be disclosed. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the content providers, companies, associations, organizations, or institutions connected to the program.
Promptness: Reviewers who accepted assignments are expected to submit their reviews within the time-frame given. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the subject of a manuscript or who is unable to promptly review a paper should notify the Director of Professional Development and recuse themselves from the process.
Confidentiality: Any program received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Likewise, the manuscript must not be shown to or discussed with others except when authorized by PPAG.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted as objectively as possible. Personal criticism of the provider(s) is both unprofessional and inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly explaining and justifying all suggested recommendations. They should provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the provider(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not acceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewer Participation as Content Provider: Reviewers may participate as content providers in the PPAG program, but they MUST not exploit their position. Peer review assignments are handled by the Director of Professional Development, but reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating their own program.
COMMITTEE CHAIR RESPONIBILITIES
Fair Play: The Chair(s) will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: The Chair(s) must not disclose any information about submitted programs to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Director of Professional Development, as appropriate. Additionally, the Chair(s) will make every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind review process (when necessary) by not revealing the identity of the reviewers.
Misconduct: Chair(s) should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a program is accepted or not accepted, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. Chair(s) should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The Chair(s) should not allow any conflicts of interest between providers, reviewers and board members. All Chair(s) must disclose any substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their review and final decisions. All sources of financial support must be disclosed. Chair(s) should recuse themselves from considering programs in which they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the content providers, companies, associations, organizations, or institutions connected to the program.