Skip to main content

Navigation group

Main content

Specialty chief editors

Scope

The Ethnopharmacology section is dedicated to publishing research focused on the study of traditional medicines including those used in modern healthcare settings and its pharmacological effects.

Led by Dr. Michael Heinrich from the School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Life Sciences, University College London, the section welcomes submissions in various domains of ethnopharmacology, which aim to enhance the understanding of traditional medicine and aiming at a more evidence-based use of such resources in healthcare. As a specifically designated field of research, ethnopharmacology has a relatively short history. The term was first described in 1967 as the title of a book on hallucinogens. It considers the pharmacological activity of plants, fungi and other organisms used in traditional medicine used locally or traditionally as a medicine or to improve health. It applies a unique approach in pharmacology, in that it also considers the traditional, and therefore anthropological context of the drug’s origin.

Topics considered in the scope of this section include:

  • anthropological and historical studies in ethnopharmacology
  • anti-inflammatory agents, and ethnopharmacology of the musculoskeletal and joint diseases
  • anti-infective agents
  • clinical studies, pharmacokinetics and public health
  • ethnopharmacology in obstetrics, gynecology, and urinary-tract disorders
  • ethnopharmacology of metabolic disorders
  • ethnopharmacology of the respiratory, gastro-intestinal, cardiovascular, endocrine and central nervous systems
  • genomic and proteomic approaches on traditional medicines
  • malignant disease and immunosuppression
  • quality and composition of traditional medicines, metabolomics
  • safety of traditional remedies and toxicology
  • treatment of dermatological conditions including ophthalmology and otorhinolaryngology
  • the interface of food and medicine, and nutrition in ethnopharmacology

Submissions must include a short explanation of the traditional use of the medicine. Although the section is interested in all diseases, studies focusing on the toxicology or clinical studies of medicinal plants, and research on “diseases of poverty” and those common in “low and middle income” countries are particularly welcome.

Clinical Trial articles will be accepted for review only in the case that they are randomized, double-blinded, and placebo controlled and the study material is described in detail. Statistical power analysis or a justification of the sample size is mandatory.

This section subscribes to the taxonomic standards laid down most importantly at the Kew MPNS portal or an alternative authoritative source for example for fungi or animals.

To be considered for peer review, all manuscripts submitted to the specialty section Ethnopharmacology must follow the best-practice assessment criteria defined as “The Four Pillars of Ethnopharmacology”. Please note, all submissions to any section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology using plant extracts or preparations must adhere to these Four Pillars, as a baseline standard for sample characterization. Additional criteria may be applied in other specialty sections where appropriate.

THE FOUR PILLARS OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY

These are a set of mandatory guidelines designed to maintain the scientific, cultural, and ethical integrity of the Journal, and describe what the leading journals in the field consider as the basic aspects of good research (full ConPhyMP statement available here, ConPhyMP statement overview here, and GA-tool here). The Four Pillars of Ethnopharmacology are summarized below for convenience, but please refer to the FULL VERSION of these guidelines before submitting a manuscript to this section.

  1. Pharmacological Requirements
    • Traditional context - The focus of the pharmacological experiments needs to be linked to the traditional context and must be described in the introduction
    • There must be clear evidence (based on a review of the published literature) for the novelty of this study
    • Credible experimental models – Methods must be state of the art, or a credible alternative.
    • Dose – ranges tested in vitro or in vivo must be therapeutically relevant
  2. Requirements Specific to the Composition of the Preparation
    • The reproducibility of ethnopharmacological experiments relies on a sufficiently detailed description of the preparation(s) used. Whether the material under investigation is a crude plant extract, a multi-herbal preparation, a single compound from a commercial source or extracted from plant, chemical and botanical composition must be explicitly stated using established standards.
  3. Basic Experimental and Ethical Requirements
    • The study must contribute substantially to the existing literature
    • Compliance with all international ethical standards including compliance with biodiversity regulation is essential
    • The use of animals must be justified
    • We will generally not consider studies using preparations derived from endangered species or obtained in a way which causes undue suffering to the animals
    • The effects of traditional medicinal preparations must be testable in scientific terms
  4. Article-type Specific Requirements
    • Field Studies
    • Safety of traditional remedies and toxicology
    • Reviews
    • Systematic Reviews
    • Meta Analyses

Research in the section is closely lined to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most importantly with the SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. Research in the field also aligns with biosphere related ones like SDG 15: Life on Land, societal ones, most notably DDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, as well as economic ones – SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

The Ethnopharmacology section does not consider submissions focused on molecular biology, cell signaling, or drug development, as these topics fall outside the traditional scope of ethnopharmacological studies and are better suited for other specialized sections within the Frontiers journals. However, the section does welcome research related to cancer, diabetes management, and other diseases of poverty, as these topics align with the section's focus on traditional medicine and its applications in modern healthcare, particularly in relation to promoting good health and well-being and reducing inequalities.

This multidisciplinary section is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating cutting-edge scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries in the field of ethnopharmacology to researchers, industry, policymakers, and the public worldwide.

Frontiers in Pharmacology is member of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Facts

  • Short name

    Front. Pharmacol.

  • Abbreviation

    fphar

  • Electronic ISSN

    1663-9812

  • PMCID

    All published articles receive a PMCID

  • Impact

    4.4 Impact Factor

    7.8 CiteScore

  • Indexed in

    PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Scopus, Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Google Scholar, DOAJ, CrossRef, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Chinese Academy of Sciences GoOA, CLOCKSS, CNKI Scholar, CrossRef, DeepGreen, Dimensions, Figshare, Google Scholar, Jisc, MyScienceWork, 1Science, Sherpa/Romeo, OpenAIRE, CNPIEC - China National Import and Export Corporation, ResearchGate

Submission

Ethnopharmacology welcomes submissions of the following article types: Clinical Trial, Correction, Data Report, Editorial, General Commentary, Hypothesis & Theory, Methods, Mini Review, Opinion, Original Research, Perspective, Policy and Practice Reviews, Retraction, Review, Study Protocol, Systematic Review, Technology and Code.

All manuscripts must be submitted directly to the section Ethnopharmacology, where they are peer-reviewed by the Associate and Review Editors of the specialty section.

Open access statement

Open access logo

Frontiers' philosophy is that all research is for the benefit of humankind. Research is the product of an investment by society and therefore its fruits should be returned to all people without borders or discrimination, serving society universally and in a transparent fashion.

That is why Frontiers provides online free and open access to all of its research publications. For more information on open access click here.

Open access funder and institutional mandates

Frontiers is fully compliant with open access mandates, by publishing its articles under the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC-BY). Funder mandates such as those by the Wellcome Trust (UK), National Institutes of Health (USA) and the Australian Research Council (Australia) are fully compatible with publishing in Frontiers. Authors retain copyright of their work and can deposit their publication in any repository. The work can be freely shared and adapted provided that appropriate credit is given and any changes specified.

Eligible for fee support?

If your institution is partnered with us you can benefit from full or partial support for article processing charges (APCs) on manuscripts you submit.

Learn moreDiscover benefits for researchers


If you want to benefit from support to publish open access, recommend our institutional partnerships program to your librarian.

Recommend program

Quality

Each Frontiers article strives for the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors, editors and reviewers, who include many of the world's best scientists and scholars. Frontiers is well aware of the potential impact of published research both on future research and on society and, hence, does not support superficial review, light review or no-review publishing models.

Frontiers uses the single anonymized peer review model, where the reviewer identity is not made visible to the author, while the author identity is visible to the reviewer, and reviewer and the authors’ identities are visible to the decision-making editor. Reviewers interact with the handling editor and the authors. Editor and reviewer names and affiliations are published on all Frontiers articles.

Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society. Therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Frontiers Review System. Furthermore, only the top certified research, evaluated objectively through quantitative online article level metrics, is disseminated to increasingly wider communities as it gradually climbs the tiers of the Frontiers Tiering System from specialized expert readership towards public understanding.

Frontiers has a number of procedures in place to support and ensure the quality of the research articles that are published:

  • 2023

    • Editorial Board Quality

      • Only leading experts and established members of the research community are appointed to the Frontiers Editorial Boards. Chief Editors, Associate Editors and Review Editors are all listed with their names and affiliations on the Journal pages and are encouraged to publicly list their publication credentials.

    • Associate Editor Assignment Quality

      • Associate Editors oversee the peer-review and take the final acceptance decision on manuscripts. Editorial decision power is distributed in Frontiers, because we believe that many experts within a community should be able to shape the direction of science for the benefit of society.

      • Submitting authors can choose a preferred Associate Editor to handle their manuscript, because they can judge well who would be an appropriate expert in editing their manuscript. There is no guarantee for this preference of choice, Associate Editors can decline invitations any time, and the handling Associate Editor can also be over-ridden by the Chief Editor before she/he is invited to edit the article or at any other stage.

      • Associate Editors are mandated to only accept to edit a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Should it become clear that the Associate Editor has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, a new Associate Editor can be assigned to the manuscript by the Chief Editor, who has full control to intervene in the peer-review process at any time.

      • The Associate Editor initially checks that the article meets basic quality standards and has no obvious objective errors.

    • Reviewer Assignment Quality

      • The Associate Editor can then personally choose and invite the most appropriate reviewers to handle the peer-review of the manuscript, including Review Editors from the board or external reviewers.

      • The Associate Editor is aided in this by the Frontiers Collaborative Review Forum software and interface, which suggests the most relevant Review Editors based on a match between their expertise and the topic of the manuscript. Associate Editors can however choose any reviewer they deem adequate.

      • After a certain time frame and if no reviewers have in the meantime been assigned to the manuscript, the Frontiers platform and algorithmic safety-net steps in and invites the most appropriate Review Editors based on constantly updated and improved algorithms that match reviewer expertise with the submitted manuscript.

      • Review Editors and reviewers are mandated to only accept to review a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest (as stated here and in their review invitation and assignment emails).

      • Frontiers algorithms are constantly fine-tuned to better match Review Editors with manuscripts, and additional checks are being coded into the platform, for example regarding conflicts of interest.

      • Should it become clear that a particular reviewer has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer-review timely and adequately, he or she shall be replaced with an alternative reviewer by the Associate Editor or the Chief Editor, who will be alerted and has full control to intervene into the peer-review at any time.

    • Independent Review Stage Quality

      • In the Independent Review Stage the assigned reviewers perform an in-depth review of the article independently of each other to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • The reviewers are aided by an online standardized review questionnaire – adopted to article types – with the goal to facilitate rigorous evaluation according to objective criteria and the Frontiers Review Guidelines.

    • Interactive Review Stage Quality

      • The Associate Editor assesses the reviews and activates the “Interactive Review” – informing the authors of the extent of revisions that are required to address the reviewers’ comments, and starting the Interactive Discussion Forum where authors and also the reviewers get full access to all review reports.

      • Manuscript and review quality at this stage are enhanced by allowing authors and reviewers to discuss directly with each other in real-time until they reach consensus and a final version of the manuscript is endorsed by the reviewers.

      • Reviewer identity is protected at this stage to safeguard complete freedom of opinion.

      • Reviewers can recommend rejection at this stage if their requests to correct objective errors are not being met by the authors or if they deem the article overall of insufficient quality.

      • Should a dispute arise, authors or reviewers can trigger an arbitration and will alert the Associate Editor, who can assign more reviewers and/or bring the dispute to the attention of the Chief Editor. The Associate Editor can also weigh in on the discussion and is asked to mediate the process to ensure a constructive revision stage.

    • Decision Stage Quality

      • The decision to accept an article needs to be unanimous amongst all reviewers and the handling Associate Editor.

      • The names of the Associate Editor and reviewers are disclosed on published articles to encourage in depth and rigorous reviews, acknowledge work well done on the article and to bring transparency and accountability into peer-review.

      • Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors’ rights have been upheld during the peer-review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review.

      • Chief Editors can at any stage of the peer-review step in to comment on the review process, change assigned editors, assign themselves as a reviewer and even as the handling editor for the manuscript, and therefore have full authority and all the mechanisms to act independently in their online editorial office to ensure quality.

    • Safeguards against Financial Conflicts of Interest

      • Only leading researchers acting as Associate Editors, who are not part of Frontiers staff, can make acceptance decisions based on reviews performed by external experts acting as Review Editors or reviewers. None have a financial incentive to accept articles, i.e. they are not paid for their role to act as Associate or Review Editors, and any award scheme is not linked to acceptances of manuscripts.

      • Chief Editors receive an honorarium if their specialty section or field reaches certain submission levels. However, this honorarium is based on the total number of submitted articles during a calendar year, and not the number of accepted articles. Therefore they also have no financial incentive to accept manuscripts.

    • Post-Publication Stage Quality

      • The Frontiers platform enables post-publication commenting and discussions on papers and hence the possibility to critically evaluate articles even after the peer-review process.

      • Frontiers has a community retraction protocol in place to retract papers where serious concerns have been raised and validated by the community that warrant retraction, including ethical concerns, honest errors or scientific misconduct.