Editorial Policy of Publisher
Editorial Policies Adopted by Scholarly Journals Published by SKUMS
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data.
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding, the gathering of data, technical help, writing assistance, and general supervision of the research group does not warrant authorship. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Please guarantee that anyone stated in the Acknowledgements section has granted its clearance for permission to be listed.
A contributorship statement is required for every manuscript submitted and should state who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article.
Recognize individuals who provided assistance to the project. Report all sources of grant and other support for the project or study, including funds received from contributors, institutions and commercial sources. Consultancies and funds paid directly to investigators must also be listed.
Any change in authorship (ie, order, addition, and deletion of authors) after initial submission must be approved by all authors. Authors should determine the order of authorship among themselves. In addition, any alterations must be clarified to the Editor/Editor-in-chief.
A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain - employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert- testimony or personal relationship). There is nothing unethical about a competing interest but it should be acknowledged and clearly stated. All authors must declare all competing interests in their covering letter and in the “Competing Interests” section at the end of the manuscript file (before the references). Authors with no competing interests to declare should obviously state that.
The policy of SKUMS is that none of the editors should have any financial relationship with any biomedical company.
Ethical approval of research/Publication Ethics
SKUMS journals are following the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aim to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.
We strongly consider allegations of publication misconduct, both before and after publication, and we reserve the right to contact authors' institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies if needed. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct, we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include supplying a correction or retraction.
Authors are expected to be aware of publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship, dual submission, plagiarism, figure manipulation, competing interests, and compliance with standards of research ethics. In cases of suspected misconduct, we will follow COPE standards and practices and may seek advice from the COPE forum if needed.
Statement of ethics approval
We require every research article submitted to include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required and why), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part. Even when a study has been approved by a research ethics committee or institutional review board, editors may ask authors for more detailed information about the ethics of the work.
Patient consent and confidentiality
Any article that contains personal medical information about an identifiable living individual requires the patient’s explicit consent before we can publish it. We would like the patient to sign our consent form, which requires the patient to have read the article.
If consent cannot be obtained because the patient cannot be traced then publication will be possible only if the information can be sufficiently anonymized. Anonymization means that neither the patient nor anyone else could identify the patient with certainty.
If the patient is dead the authors should seek permission from a relative (as a matter of courtesy and medical ethics). If the relatives are not contactable we will balance the worthwhileness of the case, the likelihood of identification, and the likelihood of offense if identified in making a decision on whether we should publish without a relative’s consent.
Our policy on obtaining consent for the publication of pictures of patients is a subset of our general policy on patient confidentiality. If there is any chance that a patient may be identified from a photograph or other image or from its legend or accompanying text we need the patient’s written consent to publication by SKUMS.
Images – such as X- rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, pathology slides, or images of undistinctive parts of the body – may be used without consent so long as they are anonymized by the removal of any identifying marks and are not accompanied by text that could reveal the patient’s identity through clinical or personal detail.
Research reporting guidelines
Authors are encouraged to use the relevant research reporting guidelines for the study type provided by the EQUATOR Network. This will ensure that you provide enough information for editors, peer reviewers, and readers to understand how the research was performed and to judge whether the findings are likely to be reliable.
The key reporting guidelines are:
Clinical trial registration
Based on ICMJE recommendations, a clinical trial defines as “any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome”.
In agreement with the ICMJE, journals published by SKUMS will not consider reports of clinical trials unless they were registered prospectively before the recruitment of any participants.
As a condition of consideration for publication, journals published by SKUMS require registration of all trials in a public trials registry that is acceptable to the ICMJE (any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform www.who.int/ictrp /network/primary/en/index.html or in ClinicalTrials.gov, which is a data provider to the WHO ICTRP).
Journals published by SKUMS use iThenticate software, which is a plagiarism detector service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines.
Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
- Directly copying text from other sources
- Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources
- Reusing text from your own previous publications
- Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language
If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we reserve the right to issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate. We reserve the right to inform authors' institutions about plagiarism detected either before or after publication.
Journals from SKUMS review all manuscript submissions, internally or externally.
Original research articles authored by a member of a journal’s editorial team are independently peer-reviewed; an editor will have no input or influence on the peer review process or publication decision for their own article. Editorials and obituaries written by the journal’s editor do not undergo external peer review.
All manuscripts submitted to SKUMS journals are subject to rigorous review. This review consists of the following steps:
1. Initial submissions are reviewed by internal staff to ensure adherence to policies of SKUMS, including ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation.
2. Submissions are then assigned to an Editor for evaluation.
3. The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. The majority of submissions are evaluated by two external reviewers, but it is up to the Editor to determine the number of reviews required.
4. After evaluation, the Editor chooses between the following decisions:
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
5. If the decision is Minor Revision or Major Revision, authors have 30 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. Authors may contact email addresses if they require an extension.
6. Upon resubmission, the Editor may choose to send the manuscript back to external reviewers or may render a decision based on personal expertise.
It is the author’s responsibility to secure all permissions prior to publication.
Material from other sources
Any written or illustrative material that has been or will be published elsewhere must be duly acknowledged and accompanied by the written consent of the copyright holder (this may be the publisher rather than the author). This includes your own previously published material if you are not the copyright holder.
Reproducing material published by SKUMS
Materials published by SKUMS may be reproduced in full or part in any medium or language only on the condition that the original material is cited properly.
The publication frequency and all related information regarding the journals are listed on their website.
Copyright and licensing
Open access agreement
Upon submitting an article, authors are asked to indicate their agreement to abide by an open access Creative Commons license (CC-BY). Under the terms of this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright of their articles. However, the license permits any user to download, print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work. The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
At present, JHP does not publish any advertisements.
Editorial Workflow in the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology
The following is the editorial workflow that every paper submitted to the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology will undergo during the course of the peer-review process. The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online manuscript tracking system. Once a manuscript is submitted by the corresponding author, all authors are notified about the submission and the corresponding author can track the manuscript in his account which is made on the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology website. The Editor-in-Chief of the journal inspects the submitted manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief, also invites the section editor or one of the associate editors or co-editors, based on the subject of the manuscript, to inspect the paper.
If they determined that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the manuscript will be rejected with no further processing. If the Editor-in-Chief determined that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, then the manuscript will go to one of the editorial board members based on the subject of the manuscript, the availability of the editors, and the lack of any potential conflicts of interest with the submitting authors. If the editor declared that the submitted paper is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology, the manuscript will be sent to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 external reviewers for peer-reviewing.
When the reviewers submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
1. Acceptance: the manuscript could be e-Published. We try to reduce this process to a maximum of two weeks. Before e-Publication, the corresponding author can verify a proof copy of the paper. After e-Publication, the paper will be in a queue to be published in one of the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology upcoming issues.
2. Minor revision: authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, in which the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy utilizing the Track Changes in Review menu of Microsoft Word Documents. The revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after the decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
3. Major revision: it means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus on their highlighted points. The editor may/may not request the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript beside a cover letter and a marked copy. The revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after the decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
4. Reject: in most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chances for them for publication in other journals.
5. Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of the Journal of Herbmed Pharmacology, it will be withdrawn with the suggestion to be sent to another journal.
If the decision is “review again after minor changes or review again after major changes, the system will automatically notify the corresponding author about the reviewer’s suggestions and recommendations.
The author/authors will have a period of time to submit the revised form of the article. After this, the Editor-in-Chief will decide if a new stage of review is necessary, and if it is the case, he will select 2 reviewers.
After the new review stage, according to the reviewer’s recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision.
The editorial workflow gives the Editor-in-Chief the authority to reject any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.
Only the Editor-in-Chief can approve a manuscript for publication, whereas editors recommend manuscripts for acceptance to the Editor-in-Chief.
The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.