Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
Ethical Responsibilities of The Editors
The Journal is committed to practice the publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.
The editorial and publication processes of the journal are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of The International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), The Council of Science Editors (CSE), The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), The European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (https://doaj.org/bestpractice).
In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct, e.g., plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow and act in accordance with COPE guidelines.
The Journal requires corresponding authors to submit a signed and scanned version of the Copyrights & Ethics form (available for download through this link) during the initial submission process in order to act appropriately on authorship rights and to prevent ghost or honorary authorship. If the editorial board suspects a case of "gift authorship," the submission will be rejected without further review. As part of the submission of the manuscript, the corresponding author should also send a short statement declaring that he/she accepts to undertake all responsibility for authorship during the submission and review stages of the manuscript.
The Journal requires and encourages the authors and the individuals involved in the evaluation process of the submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest, including financial, consultant, and institutional. Any financial grants or other support received for a submitted study from individuals or institutions should be disclosed to the Editorial Board. Cases of a potential conflict of interest of the editors, authors, or reviewers are resolved by the journal's Editorial Board within the scope of COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
The Editorial Board of the journal handles all appeal and complain t cases within the scope of COPE guidelines. In such cases, authors should get in direct contact with the editorial office regarding their appeals and complaints. When needed, an ombudsperson may be assigned to cases that cannot be resolved internally. The Editor-in-Chief is the final authority in the decision- making process for all appeals and complaints.
The Journal is committed to objective and fair double-blind peer-review of the submitted for publication works and to prevent any actual or potential conflict of interests between the editorial and review personnel and the reviewed material. Details on this subject have been explained in the authors guide and reviewers guide respectively.
Ethical Responsibilities of The Authors
Manuscripts submitted for evaluation should not have been previously presented or already published in an electronic or printed medium. The journal should be informed of manuscripts submitted to another journal for evaluation but rejected for publication. The submission of previous reviewer reports will expedite the evaluation process. Manuscripts presented in a meeting should be submitted with detailed information on the organization, including the name, date, and location of the organization.
In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct, e.g., plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow and act in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Individuals listed as an author should fulfill the authorship criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE - www.icmje.org).
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data for the work;
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for valuable intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he/she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for other specific parts of the work. Besides, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.
All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged on the title page of the manuscript.
When submitting a manuscript to The Journal, authors agree to assign the copyright of their manuscript to the Journal. If rejected for publication, the copyright of the manuscript will be assigned back to the authors. The Journal requires each submission to be accompanied by a Copyright and Ethical Form (available for download at Journal Website). When using previously published content, including figures, tables, or any other material in both print and electronic formats, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder. Legal, financial, and criminal liabilities in this regard belong to the author(s).
Statements or opinions expressed in the manuscripts published in The Journal reflect the views of the author(s) and not the opinions of the editors, the editorial board, or the publisher; thus, the editors, the editorial board, and the publisher disclaim any responsibility or liability for such materials. The final responsibility regarding the published content rests with the authors.
To summarize, all authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors' contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it.
Ethical Responsibilities of The Reviewer
Given the sensitive nature of peer review, there are ethical responsibilities of the review and review process that are critical to ensure their validity. It is important for reviewers to identify potential conflicts of interest with the authors and the topic of the manuscript. The Journal requires that reviewers disclose potential and relevant conflicts of interest related to employment, consultancies, stock ownership, receipt of honoraria, patents, a professional relationship with, or direct competition in the field of the authors. The reviewer has a responsibility to review the conflict-of-interest forms submitted by the authors, which specifically document any relevant financial relationships.
Given the role of reviewer as an expert in the topic area of the manuscript, a reviewer is requested to report any known situations of duplicate submissions (a manuscript that may be under concurrent review at another journal), fraudulent data, or plagiarism in a manuscript. If identified, these comments should be conveyed to the editor (in the confidential comments to the editor section) so they can be addressed as appropriate. Since peer review of a manuscript allows a reviewer to view data that is not yet in the public domain, strict confidentiality is critical to ensure scientific integrity; destruction of documents and files related to peer review is also mandatory once the review is complete.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is a group comprised of editors of academic journals and others interested in publication ethics. Members of COPE were provided with the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review, describing the basic principles to which reviewers should adhere. These guidelines provide a broad ethical context in which the peer review process should be performed.
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Peer review in all its form plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere
Peer reviewers should:
• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct