As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
Manuscripts should be submitted by one of the authors of the manuscript through the online Manuscript Management System. Regardless of the source of the word-processing tool, only electronic PDF (.pdf) or Word (.doc, .docx, .rtf) files can be submitted. Only online submissions are advised strongly to facilitate rapid publication and minimize administrative costs. Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be accepted. The submitting author takes responsibility for the paper during submission and peer review. If for some technical reason submission through the online Manuscript management System is not possible, the author can send manuscript as an email attachment.
Manuscript submission contact
Online manuscript submission: Link
Email submission (1): firstname.lastname@example.org
Email submission (2): email@example.com
TYPES OF PAPERS
Original research papers:
Papers that include original empirical data that have not been published anywhere earlier (except as an abstract). Null/negative findings and replication/refutation findings are also welcome. This type of paper normally should not exceed 25 double-spaced pages of text (including references) and should contain no longer than 15 figures/tables. We advise a length of 3000-6000 words (including everything). This type of paper should follow the structure of Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Competing Interests, Authors’ Contributions, Consent (where applicable), Ethical approval (where applicable), and References plus figures and/or tables.
Short Research Articles:
These may be small single-result findings. Such articles can be brief but need to include enough information, particularly in the methods and results sections, that a reader could understand what was done. We advise a length of 3000-4000 words, plus 3-4 figures and/or tables, and 15-20 key references. This type of paper should follow the structure of Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Competing Interests, Authors’ Contributions, Consent (where applicable), Ethical approval (where applicable), and References plus figures and/or tables.
Short Communications are urgent communications of important preliminary results that are very original, of high interest and likely to have a significant impact on the subject area of the journal. A Short Communication needs only to demonstrate a ‘proof of principle’. Authors are encouraged to submit a Original Research Paper to the journal following their Short Communication. We advise a length of 2500-3500 words, plus 2-3 figures and/or tables, and 15-20 key references. This type of paper should follow the structure of Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Results and Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Competing Interests, Authors’ Contributions, Consent (where applicable), Ethical approval (where applicable), and References plus figures and/or tables.
These papers will not have empirical data acquired by the authors but will include discussion of papers published and data acquired in a specific area. We advise a length of 5000-9000 words, (including 50-150 references plus 3-5 figures and/or tables (if required).
Minireviews are brief historical perspectives or summaries of developments in fast-moving areas covered within the scope of the journal. They must be based on published articles; they are not outlets for unpublished data. We advise a length of 3000-6000 words, (including 30-70 references plus 2-3 figures and/or tables (if required). They may address any subject within the scope of the journal. The goal of the Minireviews is to provide a concise summary of a particular field in a manner understandable to all readers.
Case reports / Case studies (Mainly for bio-medical journals):
Case reports describe patient cases which are of particular interest due to their novelty and their potential message for clinical practice. While there are several types of case reports, originality and clinical implications constitute the main virtues by which case reports are judged. (Ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18677298). Case studies are an invaluable record of the clinical practices of a profession. While case studies cannot provide specific guidance for the management of successive patients, they are a record of clinical interactions which help us to frame questions for more rigorously designed clinical studies. Case studies also provide valuable teaching material, demonstrating both classical and unusual presentations which may confront the practitioner. (Ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2597880/). Case Reports should follow the structure of Abstract, Introduction, Presentation of Case, Discussion, Conclusion, Acknowledgements, Competing Interests, Authors’ Contributions, Consent (where applicable), Ethical approval (where applicable), and References plus figures and/or tables. Abstract (not more than 250 words) of the Case reports should have the following sections: Aims, Presentation of Case, Discussion and Conclusion. Only Case Reports have word limits: Papers should not exceed 2000 words, 20 references or 5 figures.
Systematic Reviews should usually be based on medical interventions or animal model studies. We recommend that authors consult the PRISMA guidelines for reporting in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews should deal with a clearly formulated question and use systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically assess the relevant research. We advise a length of 5000-9000 words, (including 50-150 references plus 3-5 figures and/or tables (if required).
The purpose of the policy paper is to provide a comprehensive and persuasive argument justifying the policy recommendations presented in the paper, and therefore to act as a decision-making tool and a call to action for the target audience. We advise a length of 3000-4000 words, plus 3-4 figures and/or tables, and 15-20 key references.
Commentaries / Opinion Articles:
An opinion-based article on a topical issue of broad interest which is intended to engender discussion. We advise a length of 2500-3500 words, plus 2-3 figures and/or tables, and 15-20 key references.
Data Notes are brief descriptions of scientific datasets that include details of why and how the data were created; they do not include any analyses or conclusions.
Study Protocols and pre-protocols:
We welcome protocols for any study design, including observational studies and systematic reviews. All protocols for randomised clinical trials must be registered and follow the CONSORT guidelines; ethical approval for the study must have been already granted.
Study pre-protocols (i.e. discussing provisional study designs) may also be submitted and will be clearly labelled as such when published. Study protocols for pilot and feasibility studies may also be considered.
These articles describe a new experimental or computational method, test or procedure, and should have been well tested. This includes new study methods, substantive modifications to existing methods or innovative applications of existing methods to new models or scientific questions.
We also welcome new technical tools that facilitate the design or performance of experiments and data analysis such as software and laboratory devices, or of new technologies to assist medical treatment such as drug delivery devices. We advise a length of 3000-4000 words, plus 3-4 figures and/or tables, and 15-20 key references.
A dataset (or set of datasets) together with the associated methods/protocol used to create the data. No analysis of the data, results or conclusions should be included.
Clinical Practice Articles:
A short article relating to a specific clinical problem or scenario that discusses issues relating to patient management and treatment pathways using an evidence-based approach. Clinical Practice Articles include case series (i.e. group or series of case reports involving patients who were given similar treatment), but should not be based on a single case (see Case Reports).
Abstracts of scientific meetings:
Abstracts of oral presentations and posters (within the scope of the journal) can be published in discussion with the academic editors. Standardized abstracts (prepared in accordance with journal guidelines) need to be in English language and will be peer-reviewed prior to publication. It is recommended to contact the editor before submitting abstracts of a scientific meeting. Normally a collection of the abstracts (minimum 10 abstracts) will be published in a special issue. Abstracts are not considered for regular issues of the journal. Publication of 'collection of abstracts of a conference, symposium, etc' requires a guest editorial board. Normally the 'Review committee / Screening committee' of the conference will form the guest editorial board. List of the guest editors also will be published in the special issue.
Letter to the Editor:
A letter to the editor provides a means of communication between the author of an article and the reader of a journal, allowing continued dialogue about journal content to take place. Although not original research per se, a letter may provide new insight, make corrections, offer alternate theories, or request clarification about content printed in the journal. Letters to the Editor are considered for publication (subject to editing and abridgement) provided they do not contain material that has been submitted or published elsewhere. Letters in reference to a Journal article must not exceed 600 words (excluding references). Letters not related to a Journal article must not exceed 600 words (excluding references). A letter can have no more than eight references and one figure or table. A letter can be signed by no more than four authors. Financial associations or other possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed. This type of article will be fully peer-reviewed. [Reference and more information:
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647072 2. http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/letter-submission 3. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/misc/editor.xhtml]
Scholarly Book Review:
The scholarly book review is considered by some to be a form of academic writing that serves to describe and critically evaluate the content, quality, meaning, and significance of a book. A well-constructed book review can provide a thoughtful perspective and will be appreciated. Scholarly Book Review should be within 1800 words. Scholarly Book Review must have to be systematic and structured and proper references (2-5 numbers) should be cited during review. Scholarly Book Review must be avoided to advertise the book. Normal peer review process will be followed to ensure the academic quality of such book review. Only academically important and critical review of books will be considered for publication. There will be restrictions on numbers of such articles to be published per year.
For more information please refer below-mentioned resources:
1. How to Write a Scholarly Book Review for Publication in a Peer-Reviewed Journal
TERMS OF SUBMISSION
Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by IKP or any other publisher. The submitting author is responsible for ensuring that the article's publication has been approved by all the other coauthors. It is also the authors' responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular institution are submitted with the approval of the necessary institution. Only an acknowledgment from the editorial office officially establishes the date of receipt. Further correspondence and proofs will be sent to the author(s) before publication unless otherwise indicated. It is a condition of submission of a paper that the authors permit editing of the paper for readability. All enquiries concerning the publication of accepted papers should be addressed to firstname.lastname@example.org.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
This journal follows strict double blindfold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both, the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. Submissions will be considered by an editor and “if not rejected right away” by peer-reviewers. High-quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by minimum two peers in the same field. This journal believes that no manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is sufficiently robust and technically sound. Too often a journal's decision to publish a paper is dominated by what the Editor/reviewer think is interesting and will gain greater readership — both of which are subjective judgments and lead to decisions which are frustrating and delay the publication. This journal will rigorously peer-review your submissions and publish all papers that are judged to be technically sound.
This journal aims to publish original high-quality research work. Submission of a manuscript to this journal indicates that the study has not been published anywhere or not been submitted elsewhere for publication. If the author(s) are using any part of a published paper (in English or any other language), they should give a proper reference or in any case, if required they should get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever is suitable). Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after an internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted.
UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Units of measurement should be presented simply and concisely using System International (SI) units.
TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP INFORMATION
The following information should be included
Full author names
Full institutional mailing addresses
Email addresses of all authors
The manuscript should be written in English with a simple layout. The text should be prepared in single column format. The text, excluding the abstract, if required, can be divided into numbered sections with brief headings. Starting from introduction to section 1. subsections should be numbered (for example 2.1 (then 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2, etc.), up to three levels.
The title should be without any abbreviations and it should enlighten the contents of the paper.
The abstract should be concise and informative. It should not exceed 300 words in length. It should briefly describe the purpose of the work, techniques and methods used, major findings with important data and conclusions. Different sub-sections, as given below, should be used. No references should be cited in this part. Generally, non-standard abbreviations should not be used, if necessary they should be clearly defined in the abstract, at first use.
Immediately after the abstract, about 4-8 keywords should be given. Use of abbreviations should be avoided, only standard abbreviations, well known in the established area may be used, if appropriate. These keywords will be used for indexing.
Non-standard abbreviations should be listed and full form of each abbreviation should be given in parentheses at first use in the text.
Provide a factual background, clearly defined problem, proposed solution, a brief literature survey and the scope and justification of the work done.
Material and methods
Give adequate information to allow the experiment to be reproduced. Already published methods should be mentioned with references. Significant modifications of published methods and new methods should be described in detail. This section will include sub-sections. Tables & figures should be placed inside the text. Tables and figures should be presented as per their appearance in the text. It is suggested that the discussion about the tables and figures should appear in the text before the appearance of the respective tables and figures. No tables or figures should be given without discussion or reference inside the text.
Tables should be explanatory enough to be understandable without any text reference. Double spacing should be maintained throughout the table, including table headings and footnotes. Table headings should be placed above the table. Footnotes should be placed below the table with superscript lowercase letters.
Each figure should have a caption. The caption should be concise and typed separately, not on the figure area. Figures should be self-explanatory. Information presented in the figure should not be repeated in the table. All symbols and abbreviations used in the illustrations should be defined clearly. Figure legends should be given below the figures.
Some guidelines for Medical papers:
Randomized controlled trials should follow the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org).
Case reports, case series, cross-sectional and other observational studies should follow the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines (http://www.strobe-statement.org). If the detailed methods are explicitly stated in the manuscript for single case studies, STROBE may be avoided.
Authors producing systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (http://www.prisma-statement.org).
Results & Discussion
Results should be clearly described in a concise manner. Results for different parameters should be described under subheadings or in a separate paragraph. Table or figure numbers should be mentioned in parentheses for better understanding.
The discussion should not repeat the results, but provide a detailed interpretation of data. This should interpret the significance of the findings of the work. Citations should be given in support of the findings. The results and discussion part can also be described as separate, if appropriate.
Tables & Figures
Tables & figures should be placed inside the text. Tables and figures should be presented as per their appearance in the text. It is suggested that the discussion about the tables and figures should appear in the text before the appearance of the respective tables and figures. No tables or figures should be given without discussion or reference inside the text.
Tables should be explanatory enough to be understandable without any text reference. Double spacing should be maintained throughout the table, including table headings and footnotes. Table headings should be placed above the table. Footnotes should be placed below the table with superscript lowercase letters. Vertical rules should not be used.
Each figure should have a caption. The caption should be concise and typed separately, not on the figure area. Figures should be self-explanatory. Information presented in the figure should not be repeated in the table. All symbols and abbreviations used in the illustrations should be defined clearly. Figure legends should be given below the figures. Upon submission of an article, authors are supposed to include all figures and tables in the PDF file of the manuscript. Figures and tables should not be submitted in separate files. If the article is accepted, authors will be asked to provide the source files of the figures. Each figure should be supplied in a separate electronic file. All figures should be cited in the paper in a consecutive order. Figures should be supplied in either vector art formats (Illustrator, EPS, WMF, FreeHand, CorelDraw, PowerPoint, Excel, etc.) or bitmap formats (Photoshop, TIFF, GIF, JPEG, etc.). Bitmap images should be of 300 dpi resolution at least
Guideline for Reporting P values:
P is always italicized and capitalized.
This should briefly state the major findings of the study.
A brief acknowledgement section may be given after the conclusion section just before the references. The acknowledgements of people who provided assistance in manuscript preparation, funding for research, etc. should be listed in this section. All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgement. Authors should declare the role of the funding agency, if any, in the study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript. If the study sponsors had no such involvement, the authors should so state.
Declaration of competing interest should be placed here. All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately (or appropriately) influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. If no such declaration has been made by the authors, IKP reserves to assume and write this sentence: “Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”.
Authors may use the following wording for this section: “ ‘Author A’ designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. ‘Author B’ and ‘Author C’ managed the analyses of the study. ‘Author C’ managed the literature searches…… All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
No manuscripts will be peer-reviewed if a statement of patient consent is not presented during submission (wherever applicable).
This section is compulsory for medical journals. Other journals may require this section if found suitable. It should provide a statement to confirm that the patient has given their informed consent for the case report to be published. Journal editorial office may ask the copies of the consent documentation at any time.
Authors may use a form from their own institution or this Patient Consent Form. It is preferable that authors should send this form along with the submission. But if already not sent during submission, we may request to see a copy at any stages of pre and post-publication.
If the person described in the case report has died, then consent for publication must be collected from their next of kin. If the individual described in the case report is a minor, or unable to provide consent, then consent must be sought from their parents or legal guardians.
Authors may use the following wording for this section: "All authors declare that ‘written informed consent was obtained from the patient (or other approved parties) for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editorial office/Chief Editor/Editorial Board members of this journal."
This section is compulsory for medical journals. Other journals may require this section if found suitable. If human subjects are involved, informed consent, protection of privacy, and other human rights are further criteria against which the manuscript will be judged. It should provide a statement to confirm that the authors have obtained all necessary ethical approval from suitable Institutional or State or National or International Committee. This confirms either that this study is not against the public interest, or that the release of information is allowed by legislation.
All manuscripts which deal with animal subjects must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethical Committee, or an Animal Utilization Study Committee. , and this statement, and approval number must accompany the submission. If required, the author should be ready to submit a scanned copy of the IRB or Ethical Committee Approval at any stage of publication (Pre or post-publication stage). The manuscript should contain information about any post-operative care and pain management for the animals.
For manuscripts involving animal experiments, Authors may use the following wording for this section “All authors hereby declare that "Principles of laboratory animal care" (NIH publication No. 85-23, revised 1985) were followed, as well as specific national laws where applicable. All experiments have been examined and approved by the appropriate ethics committee”
All manuscripts which deal with the study of human subjects must be accompanied by Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethical Committee Approval, or the national or regional equivalent. The name of the Board or Committee giving approval and the study number assigned must accompany the submission. If required, the author should be ready to submit a scanned copy of the IRB or Ethical Committee Approval at any stage of publication (Pre or post-publication stage).
For manuscripts involving human experiments, Authors may use the following wording for this section: “All authors hereby declare that all experiments have been examined and approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.”
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the information in each reference is complete and accurate. All references must be numbered consecutively and citations of references in text should be identified using numbers in square brackets (e.g., “as discussed by Smith ”; “as discussed elsewhere [9, 10]”). All references should be cited within the text; otherwise, these references will be automatically removed. References must be listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the order that they appear in the text.
A PDF file of proof will be sent to the corresponding author as an e-mail attachment. Authors will be asked to check any typographical or minor clerical errors in the manuscript at this stage. No other major alteration in the manuscript is allowed.
JOURNAL COPY PURCHASE
Authors are required to purchase minimum one copy of the journal if the paper is accepted after peer review. Authors can purchase either E-journal (PDF version) or the physical journal hard-copy. Please send the filled order form to email@example.com.
Price of E-journal (PDF version): Download here
Price of physical journal hard-copy: Download here
(effective from 01/02/2018).
For commercial OFFPRINTS (Full-colour prints with Customized cover page), additional order of OFFPRINTS and journal copy please contact here: firstname.lastname@example.org
WARRANTIES AND COPYRIGHTS:
Up to 31 December, 2023 transfer of copyright from the author(s) to the publisher was mandatory. From the beginning of 2024, there is no need for copyright transfer to the publisher. From 2024 the author(s) retain the copyright of the respective paper. In this case author(s) grants a perpetual license to publish the paper to the publisher, whereas the original copyright remains with the author(s). From, 2024 all papers are published with Creative Commons ( CC-BY 4.0) license.
Authors cannot submit a manuscript for publication to other journals simultaneously. It is waste of valuable resources because editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscripts. It is also unethical to republish similar research articles (text/figures/tables) again because journals have limited page space and it most likely violates copyrights which have already been transferred to the first journal. Therefore, all journals require a signed author's copyright transfer agreement stating the originality of the research work submitted through a manuscript. As stated above that authors should submit original, new and unpublished research work to the journal. The ethical issues such as plagiarism, fraudulent and duplicate publication, violation of copyrights, authorship and conflict of interest are serious issues concerning ethical integrity when submitting a manuscript to a journal for publication.
WITHDRAWAL OF MANUSCRIPTS:
If the author requests withdrawal of manuscript after submission within the time span when the manuscript is still in the peer-reviewing process with Editors/Referees, the author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript without paying any withdrawal penalty whatsoever. However, it is unethical to withdraw a submitted manuscript from one journal if accepted by another journal. The withdrawal of manuscripts from the journals after submitting to the publisher will incur a withdrawal penalty. After the manuscript is accepted for publication either through journal editors or guest editors, the withdrawal is not permitted. If the authors or conference organizers or a third party withdraw manuscripts any time after final manuscripts have already been submitted to IKP for processing, the request is not entertained without a significant withdrawal penalty. Authors or conference organizers or a third party are not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts because the withdrawal wastes valuable manuscript processing time, money and works invested by the publisher. The authors or conference organizers or a third party must always pay $200 per page manuscript processing charges as withdrawal penalty to the publisher even if the withdrawal is permitted. The withdrawal of the conference papers by conference organizers will never be permitted and the conference organizers will be punished for withdrawal by paying a withdrawal penalty of US$500 per manuscript. Withdrawal of manuscripts is only allowed after withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to IKP by the authors or conference organizers or a third party. Any reason whatsoever of withdrawal of submitted manuscripts is treated as invalid and completely unacceptable under any circumstances. The publisher is not responsible for any damages whatsoever resulting from this consequence of the author's or conference organizer's or a third party decision. All questions or differences whatsoever concerning manuscripts withdrawal from IKP whether as to construction or otherwise, shall be held in the local jurisdiction of the registered editorial office of IKP.
This journal follows the guidelines of the ‘Committee on Publication Ethics’ (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org). This journal follows the ‘Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors’ and the ‘Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers’ as mentioned in COPE website (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines and https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts).
The submitted manuscripts are assessed for their academic content regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. Decisions to edit and publish are not controlled by government regulations or by any other entity outside the journal itself.
Editors and editorial staff will not reveal any details about a submitted manuscript to anyone, other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher, as necessary.
Unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of an Editor without explicit written permission of the author(s). Privileged information or ideas that editors receive as a result of manuscript handling would be kept confidential and not used for their personal benefit. Editors will refuse to act as an editor for manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from financial, competitive, collaborative or other relationships/association with any of the authors, companies or organisations linked to the papers; instead, they will ask another board member to handle the manuscript.
The journal's editor is responsible for determining which of the submitted papers should be published. The editor may be guided by the policy of the Editorial Board of the journal and limited by such legal provisions as are then in place in respect of libel, violation of copyright and plagiarism. When making this decision, the handling editor can consult with other editors or reviewers.
Peer review helps the editor to make editorial decisions and, through editorial correspondence with the author, can also assist the author in the refinement of the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research contained in a manuscript or who knows that its timely review would be extremely difficult/impossible should immediately inform the editors and refuse the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Manuscripts submitted for review must be considered as confidential documents. Except where approved by the editor, they must not be shown or shared with others. This policy is also applicable for the invited reviewers who refuse the invitation to review.
Reviews should be carried out objectively, and suggestions should be clearly articulated with supporting reasons, so that authors may use them to refine the manuscript. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate and must be avoided. Referees should clearly express their opinions with suitable and reasonable supporting arguments.
Reviewers should also identify relevant published work which the authors have not cited. Every statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been published in previous publications should be followed by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also inform the editors of any apparent resemblance or similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscripts (published or unpublished) about which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or concepts gained through peer review must be held confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers must not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest as a result of a financial, competitive, collaborative or other relationship or association with any of the authors, companies or organisations involved in the submission.
Authors documenting the findings of the original research should include an accurate description of the work done and an objective analysis of its importance. The underlying data should be correctly reflected in the manuscript. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or intentionally false claims represent unethical behaviour and are not permissible.
The authors should ensure that they have written completely original works, and if the authors have used the works and/or the words of others, that they have been properly referenced or quoted. Plagiarism takes several types, from "passing" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing large sections of another's paper (without attribution) to claiming findings from studies by others. Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes an unethical behaviour in publishing and is unacceptable.
In general, the author should not publish papers presenting fundamentally the same study in more than one journal or primary publication. At the same time, the submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes an unethical publishing activity and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.< /p>
Authorship should be restricted to those who have made an important contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made major contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review.
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editor, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by maintaining its own digital archive.
The Publisher and the Journal do not discriminate on the basis of age, colour, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.