Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Healthcare Issues

Scientific Responsibility

Every author has directly contributed to the submitted work in an academic and scientific capacity. The writers ought to meet each of the subsequent requirements: Should organize or carry out the research for the manuscript, write or edit the document, and approve the completed version

Ethical Rules and Plagiarism

Plagiarism of any kind is not tolerated in this journal, which is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of research and publication ethics. Before publishing, the journal uses a plagiarism checking service to ensure that the text supplied is original. In the event that articles submitted for publication in a journal include plagiarism, the writers are held accountable. The journal retains the right to send the paper for review to supporting organizations or other authorities in the event of any suspicion or allegation of ethical violations or scientific flaws. While the Journal acknowledges its need to take action, it assumes no liability for conducting an actual investigation or making decisions. Before publishing, "iThenticate" is used by this journal to check all submissions for plagiarism.

International sources state that this publication does not accept articles with a similarity rate of more than 25%. The writers must abstain from all types of plagiarism and unethical behavior, as outlined below.
In accordance with the COPE flowcharts, we reject unethical behavior and attempts to sway the review process through actions like granting authorship, making inappropriate acknowledgments, and using unauthorized references. In case the study results are published in full or in part as abstracts, the authors must provide acknowledgement.

Correction, Retraction, Clarification Policy, and Editorial Responses

This journal acknowledges its responsibility to review and address the criticisms of its published work from readers, as well as to remedy any errors.

Corrections and Retraction

These kinds of errors will be fixed online as soon as feasible, working with the publisher, and printed on an erratum sheet that will be included in the digital edition of the article and the upcoming issue. A footnote containing the date of correction, the volume and issue in which the erratum will appear, and the corrected article will be included. If the revisions are substantial in amount or scope, they won't be made online; instead, a footnote indicating the erratum's publishing will appear in the digital version.
Erratum or publisher correction: The journal's correction of a major error that compromises the article's scientific integrity, scholarly record, or authors' or journal's reputation.
A corrigendum, also known as an author correction, is the rectification of a major error committed by the author that compromises the article's scientific integrity, the scholarly record, the authors' or the journal's reputation.

Editorial Responses

Those who have examined the initial contribution will be contacted if a response of this kind is accepted for peer review. For the most part, everyone stayed anonymous. After thorough discussion with all relevant parties, responses are published, subject to review by the journal's editors.
Editorial expression of concern: Indicates when information has been added to a piece of writing, either in response to a reader's request for clarification or the fixing of a major omission. When editors determine that such addenda are essential to the reader's comprehension of a substantial portion of a published contribution, they publish them.
Retraction: Informs readers of flawed findings or wrongdoing after the editor and publisher have looked into the matter. The first piece will still be accessible, but it will be identified as retracted via an editor's published notice.
Removal of Article: In rare cases, a journal may be required by law to remove an article as a result of a lawsuit. The content of the article will be replaced by a notice indicating removal, and such removal will be noted on the issue table of contents.
For more details on publishing norms that are considered professional, consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Clarification and Appeals

Before making changes to the manuscript, the authors may email the editorial office with queries to ask the editor to clarify any points that are unclear or conflicting in the decision letter or review material.
Editors are not permitted to speak with writers directly over the phone, via video, in person, etc. regarding submissions or the review process. All correspondence about your work should be sent via email by the relevant author to the editorial office, not the editor.
Editors are not permitted to speak with writers directly over the phone, via video, in person, etc. regarding submissions or the review process. All correspondence about your work should be sent via email by the relevant author to the editorial office, not the editor.
It is not meant to be a barrier that written requests for clarification must be made. This procedure guarantees accurate documentation, gives the editor enough time to consider their responses, and permits consultation prior to answering. Formal revision plans are not provided by this Journal nor approved. The editor takes your request into consideration and makes an effort to offer the most helpful criticism. Clarification from the editor, however, does not ensure a favorable result and should not be interpreted as an endorsement of a certain editing strategy. Should a corrected manuscript be submitted, the review panel as a whole will assess it.
Plagiarism: Republishing all or a portion of the content in another author's work without giving credit is known as plagiarism.
Fabrication: Disseminate false facts, conclusions, and outcomes.
Duplication: Republishing an article in a different language or using data from another publication falls under this category.
Salamization is the process of separating a study's results abnormally in order to produce several publications.
Data falsification/manipulation: the intentional manipulation or distortion of study data to present an inaccurate picture.
In accordance with the COPE flowcharts, we reject attempts to sway the review process by unethical means including granting authorship, making inappropriate acknowledgments, and using unauthorized references.
Automated software was used to assess the submitted manuscripts for plagiarism and duplicate publication. If the authors have published study results in whole or in part as abstracts, they must give credit.

Human and Animal Rights

A statement attesting to the study protocol's compliance with international agreements (World Medical Association of Helsinki "Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects," amended October 2013) and approval from the ethical committee are prerequisites for conducting experimental, clinical, and human drug studies.
The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals' animal rights guidelines should be cited by the authors of experimental animal studies, and the animal ethics committee's approval should be obtained. The manuscript must be submitted to the journal with the Ethics Committee approval document.
The "Method" part should include the ethical committee's permission, a declaration of compliance with the previously specified international norms, and evidence that the patient's informed consent was acquired. Whenever information from media or data can be used to identify the patient, these things are needed for case reports. If the consent form is for someone under the age of eighteen, please send it with the signatures of the person's legal guardian or supervisor as well as their parents.

Publication Policy

The Editorial Board of the Journal and the responsible publisher adhere to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), US National Library of Medicine (NLM), World Medical Association (WMA), and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The Journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing.
The journal's policy states that all research studies must have their research protocols approved by an ethics committee in accordance with the international agreements "International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012)," "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th edition, 2011)," or "WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (last updated: October 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil)." The submitted manuscript will not be processed for additional review if the ethics committee has not approved it.
When writing about human experimentation, it is necessary to include a statement demonstrating that patients' and volunteers' informed consent was acquired after a thorough explanation of the possible procedures. The authors may be asked to provide a copy of the approval from the ethical committee by the Journal.

The journal authors were required to confirm the following.
The submitted articles must be original studies by authors (s).
Only unpublished articles should be submitted.
Submitting an article to more than one journal at the same time is unethical.
Any conflict of interest should be clearly stated.
The data sources used in this study are explained.
Any errors detected after the article is submitted should be immediately reported to the JHSM editors.

The reviewers were required to confirm the following:
All articles should be reviewed legally based on their intellectual content, regardless of the gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political value of the author(s).
Reviews should be objective and constructive, avoiding hostile or provocative comments and making libelous or offensive comments.
To conduct a comprehensive review, authors should have the required field expertise and review articles that can be evaluated on time.
Any conflict of interest detected during the review process must be reported to the JHSM editors.
All information about the article should be kept confidential.
Information obtained during the review process should not be used for the benefit of the reviewers themselves or any other person, the organization, or to put others in a disadvantageous position or discredit them.
Information that may be the reason for the rejection of an article’s publication should be reported to JHSM editors.

The journal editors were required to confirm the following:
All articles should be evaluated reasonably based on their intellectual content, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political values of the author(s).
All information about the article should be kept confidential.
Any observed conflicts of interest with the articles should be disclosed.
The editorial board takes on the responsibility to make publication decisions for submitted articles based on peer reviews, the policies of the journal's editorial board, and legal restrictions against plagiarism, defamation, and copyright.

Ethic Responsibility

Every author has directly contributed to the submitted work in an academic and scientific capacity. The following requirements should be met by the authors: they should organize or carry out the study for the paper, write or edit the text, and approve the final draft.
The journal searches for conformity with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki for all clinical studies. The writers bear the scientific and ethical obligations of the manuscript, but the journal owns the copyright. The manuscript's content and the reliability of the references are the authors' responsibility. A completed Copyright Transfer Form [copyright transfer] must be included with any manuscript that is submitted for publication. Following submission of this signed form by all authors, it is agreed that neither the manuscript nor the data it contains have been submitted or published elsewhere. The authors also disclose their respective scientific contributions and responsibilities.
The authors must declare in the cover letter that they have no affiliation with any commercial product, drug, pharmaceutical company, etc. involved, or, if they do, they must specify the kind of affiliation (consultant, other agreements), if any, and that they have no direct or indirect commercial links or that any institution has provided material support for the study. A declaration from the writers attesting to their lack of conflicts of interest and authorship contributions is required. The journal retains the right to send the paper for review to supporting organizations or other authorities in the event of any suspicion or allegation of ethical violations or scientific flaws. While the Journal acknowledges its need to take action, it assumes no liability for conducting an actual investigation or making decisions.
The preparation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses must comply with the following study design guidelines: PRISMA statement of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.) (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Every source of funding has been made public. If there is a significant conflict of interest in the course of the authors' investigation, they should all declare it. The Journal's Editorial Board should be informed of any grants or other forms of funding obtained for the submitted work from people or organizations.
The ICMJE Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form should be filled in and submitted by all the contributing authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Editorial Board of the journal determines cases of potential conflicts of interest between the editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of the COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
Conflicts of interest arise from circumstances that offer monetary or personal advantages. A scientific study's capacity to be planned, carried out, written, evaluated, edited, and published is closely correlated with how well its processes and published articles handle conflicts of interest.
The easiest conflicts of interest to spot are financial ones, which invariably damage the reputation of publications, writers, and scientists. Individual connections, academic competition, or intellectual methods can all lead to these conflicts. As much as feasible, the authors should abstain from entering into contracts with sponsors with the intention of profiting or obtaining any other benefit that would limit their access to all study data or their capacity to prepare, analyze, interpret, and publish their papers. When assessing the studies, editors should avoid grouping people who might be related to one another. The editors who ultimately determine which papers to publish shouldn't be financially, professionally, or personally involved in any of the topics they are debating. To guarantee that their works are assessed impartially and in accordance with ethical standards, the writers should notify the editorial board of any potential conflicts of interest.
An editor was not included in the manuscript evaluation process if they were the authors of any of the manuscripts. To avoid conflicts of interest, the article rating procedure was conducted in double blind. With the exception of the Editor-in-Chief, no member of the editorial board, international advisory board, or reviewers was aware of the identity of the manuscript's authors or their institutions due to the double-blinded evaluation process.
Taking into account all of these circumstances, our publication team works tirelessly to guarantee that the evaluation process is carried out impartially.

Conflict of Interest

When submitting an article, authors are required to include a declaration of conflict of interest between themselves and their institutions, as well as an acknowledgement of any financial or material support or help received. This declaration should come at the end of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest they may have with authors or organizations.

Appeals and complaints

The journal's Editorial Board handled matters of appeal and complaint within the parameters of COPE. The scientific content of the manuscript should serve as the foundation for the appeals. The editor-in-chief made the final decision on the appeal and complaint. Cases that cannot be settled internally are sent to the Ethical Editor or the Ombudsperson. Authors should get in contact with the Editor in Chief regarding their appeals and complaints via e-mail.