Journal of

« Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement »

Introduction
Journal of Scientific Research in Medical Sciences follows International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)‘s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Therefor, we genuinely recommend and kindly asked the authors to read these recommendations prior to their manuscript submission.
If the journal editors or any reviewer of the manuscripts suspected any research misconduct, fraud or plagiarism, the editors will follow the COPE guidelines and will inform the author and his/her institution if required.

Editorial Process
We are committed to editorial independence, our editorial processes reflect this commitment to editorial independence. We do not discriminate against the authors, editors or peer reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity.
Editorial decisions on the initial acceptance for review of the manuscripts submitted to our journals are made by academic editors and based on independent peer review reports. Final decision to accept the manuscripts for publication is made by the chief or executive editor based on recommendation of the executive editorial team.
 
Editorial responsibilities

1. Editors (Editor in Chief or Associate Editors) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors always consider the needs and interest of the readers when attempting to improve the quality of manuscripts for publication.
4. Editors guaranteed the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors recognized clear picture of a research funding sources, before a manuscript accept for publication.
7. Editors decide solely on the papers importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication scope of the journal.
8. Editors do not reverse their decisions nor overturn without serious reason.
9. Editors preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
10. Editors ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors only accept a paper when reasonably merit for publication.
12. Editors act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to resolve the problem.
13. Editors do not reject papers based on suspicions, but try to find out the proof of misconduct.
14. Editors do not allow any conflicts of interest between the journal staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
15. We do not change our decision after rejecting or accepting a manuscript without a serious reason.

1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
3. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.

1. Reviewers were asked to keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews were asked to be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
3. Reviewers were asked express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Reviewers were asked to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers were also asked to call the Editor in Chief attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers were asked 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.

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
3. Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
5. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
6. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
7. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
8. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
9. Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
10. Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
2. Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
5. Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.

1. Any type of unhappiness or dissatisfaction regarding the publication and policies of the journal.
2. The long delay in publication or a replies related to the author.
3. The decision of the editorial board member or chief editor regarding the manuscripts of the author.
4. Misjudgment of the editorial board member.

1. Complaints from the author.
2. Complaints about plagiarism.
3. Research results misappropriations.
4. Complaints regarding the research errors.
5. Bias behavior of reviewers.

 
Editorial Complaints Policy
Our managing editors, staff and the editors will take a prompt action on every complaint, irrespective of the authors, academicians or our readers and make their full efforts to solve and satisfy the person.
We take minimum time to solve the complaints of dissatisfaction.

 
How to make a complaint
The complaints of the authors and readers should be sent to the editors as soon as possible on the email via; drtooba.kazemigmail.com or M.khazdairyahoo.com. You are also welcome to discuss about your complaint on the telephone number: +985632443041-9, +985632381203