A. Ethical Obligations of Journal Editors

1. The editor shall give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts submitted for publication, judging each on its singular quality without regard to the author's gender, seniority, institutional affiliation, or the editor's personal acquaintance with the author.
2. The editor shall review and process a manuscript submitted for publication with all reasonable expediency.
3. The editor takes sole responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript for publication.
4. The editor may seek advice on a manuscript from specialists chosen for their expertise and fair judgment.
5. The editor shall disclose no information about the manuscript submitted for publication to anyone other than the author and designated reviewers until after the evaluation process is complete.
6. The editor shall respect the author's individuality and intellectual independence.

B. Ethical Obligations of Authors

1. Authors shall present an accurate account of the research performed and shall add to or subtract from the results only for statistical reasons. Authors shall confirm that their work submitted for publication has not been reported elsewhere by them or others.
2. The submitted research paper shall contain comprehensive conclusions of academic value that are firmly supported scientifically. Reporting conclusions that have been published elsewhere is strongly discouraged unless there are scientifically important reasons to do so. The author shall avoid unnecessarily burdening the reader with fragmented research results.
3. The submitted research shall contain sufficient research details and references, permitting experienced chemists to repeat and reevaluate the work. However, the authors have an obligation to use journal space wisely and economically since it is a precious resource created at considerable cost.
4. The authors shall make every reasonable effort to accurately describe reference material already open to the public. The authors should clearly indicate the origin of referred results. Information obtained through personal contacts or evaluation of manuscripts can be quoted only after receiving permission from the appropriate party.
5. The author shall cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work as well as those publications that can guide the reader quickly to earlier works essential to understanding the present research, except for what is considered to be of common knowledge. Results opposed to the author's results or opinions shall also be cited.
6. It is improper for the author to submit simultaneously manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal for publication. In general, submitting a manuscript expanding on a previously published but brief preliminary account (such as “communication”) of the same work is permissible. However, at the time of submission, the full paper must contain academically important results not included in earlier communications or letters, and the preliminary communication shall be cited in the manuscript.
7. The author may critique other scientists work. However, under no circumstances will direct personal criticism of other scientists be tolerated.
8. Co-authors of a paper shall be those researchers who have made significant scientific contributions to the present reported work and who have shared responsibilities and accountabilities for the results. A student's research advisor can be cited as co-author of a manuscript written based on the work for the student's thesis if the advisors involvement was more than a review of the students work. Other contributions shall be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgment.” The author shall first obtain definite approval from each co-author before indicating co-authorship. The order of listing co-authors shall be decided based on agreement among the co-authors. The order of the listing of co-authors shall be based on contribution to the manuscript. Co-author(s) who performed the primary research merit to be listed first. The affiliation of each author is where he/she performed the research. Change of affiliation after submission of the manuscript shall be indicated in a footnote in an appropriate manner.
9. The author shall ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that might be affected by publication of the submitted manuscript.
10. The author shall accept for serious consideration the suggestions of reviewers and editors provided during the evaluation process and try to reflect such suggestions in the revised manuscript. If the author disagrees with the suggestions, he/she shall provide a full reasoning as to why.

C. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1. Every chemist has a professional obligation to adhere to the scientific criteria for reviewing chemical research.
2. The reviewer shall objectively review and judge the quality of a manuscript, assessing the subjects of the experiments and the underlying theories, the interpretation of the results, and the depth of explanation in accordance with appropriate scientific and literary standards. Judging a manuscript by personal scientific belief or hypotheses not yet completely verified is unacceptable. The reviewer shall be objective in evaluating the manuscript without regard to any relation it might have to the reviewer's own research or the reviewer's ties with the author.
3. The reviewer shall respect the author's individuality and intellectual independence. In the reviewers report, the reviewer shall provide his/her opinion on the manuscript, indicating any unsatisfactory or questionable content with detailed explanation. The opinion of the reviewer shall be written in a proper manner and expressions insulting the author are strictly forbidden. Asking the author for further explanation or supplementary materials to achieve the reviewer's personal purposes or goals is forbidden.
4. The reviewer shall treat a manuscript submitted for review as a confidential document. It shall not be shown to nor discussed with anyone other than the author except in special circumstances where specific advice is sought. In such cases, the identities of those consulted shall be reported to the editor. It is forbidden to reference the contents of a manuscript before publication without the author's approval.
5. The reviewer shall confirm proper citation of work referred to in the manuscript. If the work described in the manuscript is similar to previously published work, the reviewer shall report this to the editor in detail.
6. The reviewer shall act promptly, submitting an evaluation report in a timely manner. A chosen reviewer who decides that he/she is unqualified to judge a submitted manuscript shall promptly inform the editor of this fact.