Publishing ethics

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Council of Scientific Editors (CSE)

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

World association of Medical editors (WAME)

Authors must certify that the work reported in the manuscript is original and free from any plagiarism.

Authors must certify that the work has not been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the same time.

Authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest associated with the manuscript.

Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of all mistakes.

Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.

The editor of a journal has complete responsibility and authority to make editorial decisions on all manuscripts submitted for peer-review and publication.

The editor should treat all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, and honesty. All manuscripts are to be assessed objectively based on their academic merit and free of all commercial or self-interests.

The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least three independent reviewers.

The editor shall ensure that all research material they accept for publication conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

The editor shall not disclose any information concerning submitted manuscripts before publication of the manuscript.

The editor shall cooperate with the publisher to describe, implement, and regularly review policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone else involved in the peer review process.

The editor shall be vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspicious or unusual reasons.

The editor is responsible for developing mechanisms, in cooperation with the publisher, to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts.

The editor is responsible for assigning manuscripts to each reviewer following consideration of the reviewer’s area of expertise and interest.

Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.

Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems best.

Providing detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation, in a timely manner, on the scientific content of the manuscript.

Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.

Avoiding personal comments or criticism. If reviewers have any interest that might interfere with an objective review, they should either decline the role of reviewer or disclose the conflict of interest to the editor and ask how best to address it.

Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review a manuscript when the possibility of such conflict exists.

Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between a previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.