Publishing Procedures and Policies

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

The quality of published articles is ensured through the peer-review process and editorial scrutiny. This involves rigorous peer-review of submitted articles to ensure that only high-quality submissions are accepted and published. Published articles should reflect up-to-date research findings, with reliable and sound results, as well as an objective and unbiased discussion of the results. The journal's editorial board comprises research scientists and medical specialists with rich research and publication experiences.

Here is the Step-by-Step Process of submitting a Manuscript and Peer-Review:

  1. Manuscript submission via the journal's online submission system, followed by the assignment of a manuscript number.
  2. Primary manuscript check by the editorial assistant to ensure that the manuscript components are complete and conform to the submission requirements. This check also identifies issues such as duplicate submission, plagiarism, and ethical violations. Manuscripts that do not meet the submission requirements will be returned to the authors for corrections and resubmission, or even rejected outright.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the submitted manuscript for novelty, scientific importance, and relevance to the journal's general readership.
  4. Manuscripts lacking sufficient quality, poorly written, or with ethical issues will be rejected promptly without further review.
  5. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two external expert reviewers for peer review.
  6. Reviewers are asked to provide an unbiased, critical, and independent assessment of the submission within the assigned time. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the peer reviewers' comments and decides whether to accept with/without revision or reject the submission. The corresponding/submitting author is notified of the editorial decision.
  7. Manuscripts that require minor or major revisions are returned to the authors with a deadline for resubmission. The revised manuscripts are reassessed by the same reviewers to determine if the authors have satisfactorily addressed their criticisms and comments. Depending on the reevaluation, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
  8. The above review process may be repeated (one or more times) if a manuscript revision (major or minor) is requested.
  9. The peer-review process is single-blinded, with the reviewers aware of the manuscript authors but the authors unaware of the reviewers' identity.
  10. All manuscripts are treated as privileged and confidential information by the editorial staff, editors, and assigned reviewers. Reviewers' comments are not published, and the reviewers' identity remains anonymous. The manuscripts under review are not revealed to anyone other than the peer reviewers and editorial staff.

 

Reviewing Potential Conflicts of Interest

Members of the editorial team and external peer reviewers assessing manuscripts must perform a COI self-assessment. Financial gain and collaborations among authors are common examples of COI, which may be challenging to avoid in highly specialized fields.

When reviewing articles, editors and reviewers must answer the following questions in a COI statement:

    1. Is there a financial gain? (Yes or No)
    2. Is there an existing relationship? (Yes or No)
    3. Are there shared institutional affiliations? (Yes or No)
    4. Is there a personal or family relationship that may result in a conflict? (Yes or No)

If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes," the editor or reviewer should recuse themselves, and the article will be reassigned to a different editor or reviewer.

Submissions from Members of the Editorial Board

To avoid conflicts of interest, members of the editorial board are allowed to submit articles for publication in the journal. However, the managing editor for the submission will be selected from a different institution to minimize the risk of COI. The submitting editor will not participate in any editorial discussions, peer review process, or manuscript decisions. The article will be treated like any other submission to the journal. Similarly, article submissions from the editor-in-chief will be handled by a member of the editorial board from a different institution. This member will oversee the editorial process and peer review, while the editor-in-chief will not participate in any editorial activities. The final decision regarding the manuscript will be made by the managing editor. To determine the best editorial team members and peer reviewers for each manuscript, the COI self-assessment mentioned above will be utilized.