Section.1.1. Authorship |
|
Section.1.2. Plagiarism |
|
Section.1.3. Multiple, Duplicate, and Concurrent Publication/Simultaneous Submission |
|
Section.1.4. Research Fraud |
|
Section.1.5. Ethical Approval of Studies and Informed Consent |
For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human participants or animals, formal review and approval or formal review and waiver by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee is recommended. For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed (World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf. For investigations of humans, the investigators should state in the methods section the manner in which informed consent was obtained from the study participants (i.e., oral or written).
|
Section.1.6. Identification of Patients in Descriptions, Photographs, and Pedigrees |
A signed statement of informed consent to publish (in print and online) patient descriptions, photographs and pedigrees should be obtained from all persons (parents or legal guardians for minors) who can be identified (including the patients themselves) and should be submitted with the manuscript and indicated in the Acknowledgment section of the manuscript. Such persons should be shown the manuscript before its submission. Omitting data or making data less specific to de-identify patients is acceptable, but changing any such data is not acceptable.
|
Section.1.7. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest |
|
Section.2.1. Editorial Roles |
Manuscripts are evaluated by editors according to the following criteria: the material is original and timely, the language is clear, the study methods are appropriate, the data are valid, the conclusions are reasonable and supported by the data, the information is important, and the topic has general medical interest. Based on these basic criteria, the editors will assess a paper’s eligibility for publication.
|
Section.2.2. Impartiality |
All submissions should be treated equally and evaluated fairly based on the quality of the manuscripts and according to the established rules. No special treatment will be given based on an authors’ gender, age, affiliation, or personal connection.
|
Section.2.3. Review |
The Editorial Board members, based on their judgment, should commission reviewers who are knowledgeable in the areas of research reported in the submitted manuscripts. Persons with personal ties to the authors should not be recommended as reviewers. Reviewers who are hostile towards authors should not be considered. When review results are significantly different from reviewer to reviewer, the Editorial Board can seek advice from outside experts with deep knowledge of the field for a final decision.
|
Section.2.4. Confidentiality Disclosure |
Until the final decision of acceptance is made, no information about the authors or the manuscript can be released.
|
Section.2.5. Duty for Report |
For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving human participants or animals, formal review and approval or formal review and waiver by an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee is recommended. For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed (World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf. For investigations of humans, the investigators should state in the methods section the manner in which informed consent was obtained from the study participants (i.e., oral or written).
|
Section.3.1. Review Period and Decline of Review |
Reviewers are required to evaluate papers commissioned by the Editorial Board within a certain period of time set for review. They need to inform the Editorial Board of the review results. If the reviewer thinks he or she will not be able to serve as a reviewer for some reasons, he or she should notify the Editorial Board of his or her inability to do the review.
|
Section.3.2. Impartiality |
Reviewers are required to review manuscripts fairly and objectively. They also should not allow any personal beliefs or personal ties to disrupt the review process. Rejecting manuscripts because they are against personal beliefs or interpretations without properly presenting sensible reasons is not acceptable. Reviewing without thoroughly reading the manuscript is also not acceptable.
|
Section.3.3. Notification |
Reviewers should notify the Editorial Board when they find that papers they are reviewing have been published in other journals or are under review for publication in other journals. Also, any problems concerning the papers should be addressed to the Editorial Board.
|
Section.3.4. Making Reviewers’ Comments |
Reviewers should respect the authors’ individualities. While expressing opinions on manuscripts in an evaluation form, the reviewers need to explain why the paper needs corrections. Reviewers’ comments should be expressed positively. Belittling or insulting authors is not allowed.
|
Section.3.5. Confidentiality Disclosure |
Information on assigned papers should be kept confidential by reviewers. Showing the papers to or consulting with someone else is not desirable unless the reviewers are seeking advice for review. Citing any passages in whole or part from the manuscript before publication is not allowed.
|
Though this journal has not yet obtained membership on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), it is committed to adhering to the standards and guidelines set out by the COPE. The following are useful links for authors, reviewers and editors. (COPE, COPE Flow Charts, International Standards for Editors and Authors).
|