Journal Policies
The International Journal of Medical, Dental, and Biological Sciences encompasses a wide range of subjects within medicine, dentistry, and biology. It includes original research articles, reviews, and case studies in areas such as clinical medicine, public health, epidemiology, dental research, oral health, molecular biology, genetics, biochemistry, and ecology. The journal encourages interdisciplinary research that investigates the connections between medical, dental, and biological sciences, promoting a holistic understanding of these fields.Our policies are as follows ;
Peer Review Policy
The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Review Policy and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Type of Peer Review
Policy employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: - Is original - Is methodologically sound - Follows appropriate ethical guidelines - Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions - Correctly references previous relevant work.
Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee's reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor's Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article
The peer review policy is designed to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific content. This objective process is integral to reputable scientific journals and involves an initial evaluation by the Editor. Manuscripts that meet minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two experts for double-blind review, where both the referee and author remain anonymous. Referees assess the manuscript's originality, methodological soundness, adherence to ethical guidelines, clarity of results, and proper referencing of previous work. While language correction is not part of the review, referees may suggest corrections if desired. The review process duration depends on referee responses, and conflicting reports or delays may prompt seeking additional expert opinions. The Editor's decision, accompanied by referee recommendations and verbatim comments, is final, emphasizing the editor's responsibility for the article's acceptance or rejection.
Conflict of Interest Policy
Adopted from Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals which is prepared by WAME Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics Committees.
Articles would be published with statements or supporting documents declaring:
Authors’ conflicts of interest; and Sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; the decision to submit the report for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement; and
Whether the authors had access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is on-going.
To support the above statements, editors may request that authors of a study sponsored by a funder with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Derived from the Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals by the WAME Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics Committees, our Conflict of Interest Policy stipulates that published articles must include statements or supporting documents disclosing:
Authors' conflicts of interest; andSources of support for the work, encompassing sponsor names and clarifications on their role, if any, in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, report writing, the decision to submit for publication, or a declaration that the supporting source had no such involvement; and
Whether authors had access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is ongoing. To substantiate these statements, editors may request authors of a study sponsored by a funder with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome to sign a statement affirming, for example, "I had full access to all of the data in this study, and I take complete responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the data analysis."
Editorial & Peer Review Process
Editorial and Peer Review Processes generally follow these steps:
We follow and request from authors, reviewers and editors the "ICJME Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals".
When an article is submitted to Archives of Clinical and Experimental Surgery, Editor makes the first check of submitted articles (structure, plagiarism, scientific quality).
Article may be rejected, sent back for structural revision, or sent to at least two reviewers for peer review.
After peer review process, articles may be rejected, sent back for revision requested by reviewers or accepted for publication.
Revised articles by authors may be accepted, resent to reviewers, resent to authors for additional corrections/revision or rejected.
Authors could not see reviewers’ information. Editor may make authors’ information available to reviewers or not.
Accepted articles are forwarded to publishing process.
Editor(s) may require additional materials or changes from authors during copy editing, composing, grammatical editing and/or proof reading steps.
Our Editorial and Peer Review Processes adhere to the "ICJME Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals." Upon submission to Archives of Clinical and Experimental Surgery, the Editor conducts an initial check for article structure, plagiarism, and scientific quality. Articles may be rejected, returned for structural revisions, or sent to a minimum of two reviewers for peer evaluation. Following the peer review process, articles can be rejected, sent back for revisions as per reviewers' suggestions, or accepted for publication. Revised articles undergo further assessment, potentially leading to acceptance, reevaluation by reviewers, further corrections, or rejection. Reviewers remain anonymous to authors, and the Editor may or may not disclose authors' information to reviewers. Accepted articles proceed to the publishing phase, where Editors may request additional materials or changes during copy editing, composition, grammatical editing, and proofreading steps.
Publication decisions
The editor of the int J of med dent &biol is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
-
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
-
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
-
Promptness
-
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
-
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider 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.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant 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 acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Editorial and Peer Review Processes
Our journal aligns with the "ICJME Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals." The editorial process involves an initial check by the Editor, who assesses article structure, plagiarism, and scientific quality. Articles may be rejected, revised for structure, or sent to at least two reviewers for peer review. After this process, articles can be rejected, sent back for revisions as per reviewer feedback, or accepted for publication. The revised articles may undergo further evaluation and potential re-review, and accepted articles move forward to the publishing phase.
Publication Decisions
The editor, guided by the journal's policies and legal requirements, is responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. The decision-making process may involve consultation with other editors or reviewers.
Fair Play
Editors must assess manuscripts based on intellectual content without considering factors like race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and editorial staff are obligated not to disclose any submitted manuscript information beyond the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the author's written consent.
Plagiarism Policy
Engaging in any form of plagiarism is a severe violation of scholarly principles and is deemed unacceptable. Instances of plagiarism include:
Directly copying portions of another's writing without enclosing the copied text in quotation marks and properly acknowledging the source using scholarly conventions.
Using a distinctive term or concept without crediting the original author or source.
Paraphrasing or condensing someone else's ideas without acknowledging that the paraphrased content is based on another person's text.
Falsely attributing material to a source from which it has not been obtained.
Presenting fabricated or altered data from a laboratory or experiment, which, while not factually plagiarism, constitutes a form of academic fraud.
Failure to acknowledge multiple authors or collaborators, obscuring the contributions of each individual involved.
Self-plagiarism or double submission, which involves submitting the same or a very similar paper to two or more publications.
Protection of Research Participants (Statement On Human And Animal Rights)
Adapted from the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html).
In documenting experiments involving individuals, authors must specify if the procedures adhered to ethical standards set by the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national). If no formal ethics committee is available, authors should align their procedures with the 2008 revised Helsinki Declaration. In cases of uncertainty regarding compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, authors should elucidate their rationale and demonstrate explicit approval from the institutional review body for any questionable aspects of the study.
Patients possess a right to privacy, safeguarded by informed consent. Identifying information, unless essential for scientific purposes, should not be disclosed in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees without the written consent of the patient (or parent/guardian). Authors must inform patients about potential identifiable material being available online or in print. Patient consent, obtained in written form, should be archived with the journal or authors, in accordance with local regulations. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted, and informed consent sought if anonymity is doubtful. Authors should assure that de-identified characteristics do not distort scientific meaning.
Journals should include informed consent requirements in their instructions for authors and indicate its presence in published articles. When reporting animal experiments, authors must disclose adherence to institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals, with additional guidance available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.
