Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1. Overview & Core Standards

Our journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of research integrity, publication ethics, and objective peer review. Our ethical policies align with internationally recognized guidelines established by the:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
• Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

All editorial workflows, peer reviews, and author responsibilities operate under the principles of fairness, transparency, academic freedom, and zero tolerance for research misconduct. These policies govern the full life cycle of an article—from initial submission and review through publication, post-publication updates, and archiving.

2. Ethical Considerations in Research

Human Research Ethics

Studies involving human participants must adhere to the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national/institutional statutory regulations. Authors are required to:

• Submit official approval documentation and registry numbers from an accredited Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC).

• Confirm that informed consent (written, verbal, or formal regulatory waiver) was obtained from participants or their legal guardians.

• Protect patient anonymity, privacy, and personal health data. Case reports and identifiable images require an explicit written patient consent form.

• Prospectively register all clinical trials in an open, recognized clinical trial registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, CTRI, or WHO ICTRP) prior to the enrollment of the first participant.

• For retrospective studies or secondary data analyses, explicitly state whether ethical approval was obtained or formally waived.

Animal Research Ethics

Research involving animals must comply with institutional, national, and international standards, including the ARRIVE guidelines and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors must:

• Provide proof of approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics body.

• Describe procedural measures implemented to minimize animal pain, distress, and total subject count.

3. Plagiarism & Originality Screening

To preserve the scientific record, all submissions are evaluated prior to review using similarity analysis software (Turnitin / iThenticate).

• Overall Similarity Threshold: Submissions must not exceed 15% total similarity.

• Self-Similarity (Text Recycling): Limited to under 10%, excluding methodology standards and reference lists where reasonable.

• Attribution: All quotes, paraphrased theories, and reproduced datasets must carry complete, formal citations.

• Any suspected plagiarism, verbatim copying without attribution, data manipulation, or redundant submission triggers an immediate inquiry governed by COPE flowcharts.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief & Editorial Board

• Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over editorial acceptance, supported by associate editors and external reviewer reports. Decisions are grounded solely in academic validity, original contribution, methodology, and relevance.

• Fair Play & Impartiality: Manuscripts are assessed without regard to race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, or political views of the authors.

• Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted materials and reviewer details, communicating only with authors, designated reviewers, and publishers.

• Conflicts of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have financial, personal, or institutional conflicts. Unpublished findings revealed during review must never be repurposed for an editor’s personal research.

Authors

• Reporting Standards: Authors must present accurate original data and a transparent, balanced discussion of study implications. Fabricated, falsified, or deliberately biased data constitutes gross ethical misconduct.

• Authorship Criteria: Authorship is limited to individuals meeting standard ICMJE criteria:

  1. Substantial contributions to study concept, design, acquisition, or data analysis.

  2. Drafting or critical revision of the manuscript for intellectual content.

  3. Final approval of the manuscript to be published.

  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the research integrity.

     Contributors who do not fulfill these four criteria should be credited in the Acknowledgments section.

• Concurrent/Redundant Publication: Submitting the same work to more than one journal concurrently is strictly prohibited. Work previously published in whole or substantial part must not be republished without explicit authorization and citation.

• Data Access & Retention: Authors must be willing to provide access to underlying raw datasets during peer review or post-publication upon editorial request.

• Correction of Errors: Authors are obligated to notify the editorial office immediately upon identifying significant factual errors in their work and cooperate in publishing a formal correction or retraction.

Peer Reviewers

• Constructive Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively, professionally, and free of personal hostility or bias. Comments should offer clear reasoning and evidence-backed recommendations.

• Confidentiality: Review materials are privileged communications and must not be shared, discussed, or retained for personal use.

• Disclosure of Conflicts: Reviewers must decline assignments in which they have commercial, academic, financial, or personal relationships with authors, funding bodies, or affiliated institutions.

• Misconduct Alert: Reviewers are expected to notify editors immediately of any suspected ethical lapses, including uncredited sources, substantial overlap with published papers, or suspected data fabrication.

5. Editorial Board Member Submissions

To maintain fairness and avoid conflicts of interest when editors or board members publish within the journal:

• Total Recusal: Submitting board members and Editors-in-Chief are excluded from all editorial communications, evaluations, reviewer selections, and decisions concerning their work.

• Independent Handling: The manuscript is assigned to an independent associate editor or an external guest editor without ties to the author.

• Double-Blind Integrity: The submission undergoes standard double-blind peer review with at least two external independent reviewers. Reviewers are not informed of the author’s editorial affiliation.

• No Preferential Treatment: Decisions rest entirely on scholarly merit, without exceptions or prioritization.

6. Peer Review & Editorial Workflow

• Double-Blind Review Model: Both author identities and reviewer identities remain anonymized to eliminate implicit bias.

• Expert Assessment: A minimum of two independent, qualified subject-matter experts evaluate each paper.

• Review Timelines & Revisions:

  • Initial review outcomes are typically delivered within 2 to 3 weeks.

  • Minor Revisions: Expected within 5 to 7 days.

  • Major Revisions: Expected within 10 to 14 days.

  • Revisions are capped at two rounds to prevent indefinite delays.

• Editorial Decisions: Final options are: Accept, Minor Revisions Required, Major Revisions Required, or Reject.

7. Retraction & Correction Policy

Following COPE Retraction Guidelines, the journal actively maintains the reliability of published scholarship.

Grounds for Retraction:

• Conclusive evidence of data fabrication, data falsification, or severe computational/experimental error rendering conclusions invalid.

• Documented plagiarism or unauthorized use of data/materials.

• Duplicate or redundant publication without editorial approval and proper disclosure.

• Unethical human/animal research conduct or failure to secure proper ethical board clearance.

• Compromised, manipulated, or fabricated peer-review processes.

• Major undisclosed conflicts of interest that undermine the validity of the work.

Retraction Notices Must:

• Be open-access and permanently linked to the electronic versions of the original article.

• Clearly cite the article title, authors, and state who is issuing the retraction.

• State the factual reasons for retraction in neutral, objective language.

When Retraction is Not Appropriate:

• Disputed authorship where the research findings themselves remain sound.

• Minor calculation or typographical errors that can be fully rectified through an Errata/Corrigenda notice.

• Post-publication disclosure of conflicts of interest that editors confirm did not alter findings or review outcomes.

8. Post-Publication Discussions & Errata

• Corrections: Minor honest errors that do not compromise overarching conclusions are addressed promptly by publishing a formal Correction notice.

• Expressions of Concern: When credible allegations of misconduct arise but investigations by institutions or editors remain ongoing and inconclusive, an Expression of Concern may be issued to alert readership.

• Appeals & Inquiries: Authors or readers wishing to report concerns or appeal an editorial decision may contact the Editorial Office with verifiable, documented evidence for review by an independent ethics committee.