The Journal of Research in Applied and Basic Medical Sciences follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)'s Recommendations. A selection of key points is included below; however, we appreciate if authors follow and check all the COPE and ICMJE guidelines before submitting their manuscript.
If we suspect an ethical problem, misconduct, fraud or plagiarism, we will follow the COPE guidelines and reserve the rights to inform authors or their institution.
Conflict of interest occurs when financial or non-financial relationship or interest exists between any participants in the peer review or publication process – authors, reviewers, editors, or editorial board members of journals – and might bias or be seen to bias fulfilling their role. In addition, authors should follow journal and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests. Furthermore, authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
- Publication and authorship
- All submitted papers are subject to strict double-blind peer review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. The peer review process can take anywhere between two to four months.
- The aim of the review process is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article, in terms of relevance, originality, up-to-datedness, coherence, balanced argumentation, readability, statistical validity and language.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
- If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
- No research can be included in more than one publication.
ICMJE recommends authors and contributors to respect and adhere to the following four criteria:
- Author responsibilities
We also recommend authors to submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author’s contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication or not. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgment.
- "Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
- Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
- Final approval of the version to be published; AND
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved."
- Protecting research subjects, patients and experimental animals
- Laboratory and clinical research should be driven by protocol; pilot studies should have a written rationale.
- Research protocols should seek to answer specific questions, rather than just collect data.
- Protocols must be carefully agreed by all contributors and collaborators, including, if appropriate, the participants.
- The final protocol should form part of the research record.
- Early agreement on the precise roles of the contributors and collaborators, and on matters of authorship and publication, is advised.
- Statistical issues should be considered early in study design, including power calculations, to ensure there are neither too few nor too many participants.
- Formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriately constituted research ethics committee is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and anonymised human tissues.
- Use of human tissues in research should conform to the highest ethical standards, such as those recommended by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
- Fully informed consent should always be sought. It may not always be possible, however, and in such circumstances, an appropriately constituted research ethics committee should decide if this is ethically acceptable.
- Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements. International standards vary.
- Formal supervision, usually the responsibility of the principal investigator, should be provided for all research projects: this must include quality control, and the frequent review and long term retention (may be up to 15 years) of all records and primary outputs.
According to COPE, peer reviewers are external experts who are chosen by the journal editors to offer their written opinions regarding the manuscript for improving the quality of the study.
- Reviewers' responsibilities
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Editors' responsibilities
- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
- Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
- Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
- Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accept ethical guidelines.
- Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity and clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ origin, or institutional affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
- Fair play and editorial independence
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.