Our ethics statements are based on COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors/Authors/Reviewers.
I. Duties of Editor/Editorial Board:
Publication decisions: The editor 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Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
II. 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 him 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.
Acknowledgment 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.
III. 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.
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 behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.
Author Complaint Process
Before submitting manuscripts, authors are requested to read all the guidelines and policies regarding the processing and publication of the manuscript.
How to complaint?
The authors have the right to complain and ask for an explanation if they perceive any misconduct in any applicable policies and ethical guidelines. The authors can raise their complaints by submitting a letter to firstname.lastname@example.org
All the complaints regarding delinquencies in the work processes are investigated according to the prevailing publication ethics practices.
An author or any other scholar may submit their complaints about any issues related to:
2. Copyright violation
3. Deceiving in research results or wrong research results
4. Violations in set standard for research
5. Unrevealed conflicts of interest
6. Bias in review process
7. Manuscript processing time is unusually late
8. The peer-review comments are unsatisfactorily
9. Authorship issues
Policy for Dealing with Complaints
Once a complaint is received, at first, an acknowledgment is sent to the complainant with the assurance that appropriate action will be taken on the complaint within three working days excluding the complaint receiving date.
The investigation process is initiated by the Journal handling team according to the directions of the Editor-In-Chief. After the investigation is over, a meeting is held with a complete report on the complaint. The decision is taken in and the same is forwarded to the concerned scholar through his submitted email ID.
We consider complaints as an opportunity to enhance our existing Manuscript Processing System. All the received complaints are dealt with in a polite and timely manner with certainty.
Anti-plagiarism declaration, by submitting a paper for publication to Advances in Clinical Medical Research, Authors (all authors of the article) certify that;
- Authors are fully aware that plagiarism is illegal & wrong and authors know that plagiarism is the use of another person’s idea or published work and to pretend that it is one’s own.
- Authors declare that each contribution to their article or project have been acknowledged and source of information from other people published or unpublished works have been cited referenced.
- Author(s) certify that they/you are solely responsible for text of the article and work included in the article along with any incomplete reference.
Screening for Plagiarism
Articles submitted for publication are priorly controlled via Turnitin (Plagiarism Detection Software). If articles identified as plagiarism or self-plagiarism with more than 20%, the manuscript will return to the author for correction. After this process, if the original submission has still at least 20% plagiarism journal has the right for rejection.