ISSN 2415-1297 (Online)   ISSN 2415-1300 (Print)
 
             
 
Volume : 25 Issue : 1 Year : 2017
 

Aims & Scope

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
(based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal.
It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the journal language editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Focus and Scope
Medical Journal of Islamic World Academy of Sciences (MJIAS) provides a forum for original research and scholarship about medical sciences. The MJIAS aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard and to add new sections such as social and preventive medicine papers, related especially to the areas will be brought to the attention; since prevention is essential and cheaper than treatment.

The journal particularly welcomes studies that aim to evaluate and understand the medical sciences and health policies and which employ the most rigorous designs and methods appropriate for the research question of interest. The journal also seeks to advance the quality of research by publishing methodological papers introducing or elaborating on analytic techniques, measures, and research methods.

The journal has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles of interest to the medical sciences. The MJIAS offers authors the benefits of:

• A highly respected journal in its field
• Indexed in databases:
- WHO Index Medicus for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR): http://www.emro.who.int/library/imjournals
- Turkiye Citation Index: http://www.atifdizini.com/journals/tr-index.html
• A truly global readership
• Highly efficient editorial processes: average time from submission to first decision of 4 weeks
• Rapid initial screening for suitability and editorial interest
• Excellent peer reviewers drawn from a range of health service research disciplines
• Early online publication as Article in Press - fully citable by your peers - on average 8 weeks after acceptance.

Peer Review Process
The following is the review process that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.

The entire review process is performed using the online submission. Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. The editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the Editor decide to not assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, he/she is required to provide comments to be returned to the author.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer-review. The deadline to complete the review process is 4 weeks. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

- Accept
- Consider after Minor Revision
- Consider after Major Revision
- Reject

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

- Publish
- Consider after Minor Revision
- Consider after Major Revision
- Reject

If the Editor recommends“Publish", the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the Editor recommends“Consider after Minor Revision, the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Only the Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends "Consider" after "Major Revision",  the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be "Publish" or "Consider" after "Minor Changes" or "Reject".”

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.

The Editors have the authority in rejecting any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.

The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are and vice-versa.

Publication Frequency
Medical Journal of Islamic World Academy of Sciences is published four times in a year. Journal items are published collectively, as part of an issue with its own Table of Contents. Alternatively, individual items will be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents. Website: www.medicaljournal-ias.org

SECTION POLICIES
ARTICLES

Open Submissions Indexed Peer Reviewed

Publication decisions
The editor of the GR 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 Reviewer
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 confilcts 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
Authors might be 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 Plaglarism
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 confilcts 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.

ISSN 2415-1297 (Online)  
ISSN 2415-1300 (Print)

 











 
Copyright 2017 medicaljournal-ias.org. All Rights Reserved.