Advertising Policy

The journal may include advertisements; however, advertising must never compromise editorial independence, scientific integrity, or the peer review process. All editorial decisions, including the acceptance, rejection, or revision of manuscripts, are made solely by the editorial team based on scientific merit and compliance with journal policies, without any influence from commercial interests or advertisers.

Guidelines for Advertisements

• Advertisements must be truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to the journal's readership.
• Advertisements for products, services, or events that conflict with the journal's mission or may raise ethical concerns (e.g., unapproved medical treatments, misleading claims) are not accepted.
• Advertisements, if included, are clearly separated from editorial content, using visual and/or textual markers, so that readers can easily distinguish advertising from peer-reviewed material.
• The journal does not allow any advertising that could create a conflict of interest with editorial content, including promotion of studies by sponsors of the advertisement.

Editorial Independence

• Editors and editorial staff do not participate in advertising negotiations.
• Advertisers have no influence over the selection of manuscripts, peer review decisions, or publication schedule.
• Any potential conflicts of interest related to advertising are fully disclosed in accordance with COPE and ICMJE recommendations.

Ethical Standards

• Advertising practices comply with international ethical guidelines and applicable laws and regulations in the journal's operating region.
• The journal reserves the right to reject or remove advertisements at any time if they are deemed inappropriate, misleading, or inconsistent with the journal's values.

Appeals and Complaints Policy

The journal is committed to ensuring a transparent, fair, and impartial editorial process, and provides clear mechanisms for authors, reviewers, and readers to raise concerns related to editorial decisions, peer review, or publication ethics.

Appeals by Authors

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the editorial office. The appeal must include:

• The manuscript title and ID
• A detailed justification for the appeal, outlining specific concerns regarding the editorial decision
• Any supporting documentation that may aid the review of the appeal

Appeals are evaluated independently by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor who was not involved in the original decision, ensuring objectivity. Authors will be informed of the outcome of the appeal in a timely manner.

Complaints

Complaints may relate to:

• Editorial processes
• Peer review procedures
• Alleged ethical violations, including plagiarism or conflicts of interest

All complaints are handled confidentially, according to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. The editorial office may consult independent experts if necessary to resolve complex complaints.

Principles

• All appeals and complaints are reviewed impartially, fairly, and transparently.
• Decisions on appeals or complaints are final, but the journal reserves the right to reassess the process if new evidence arises.
• The journal encourages authors and readers to raise concerns promptly and constructively to maintain the integrity of the publication process.

Article Processing Charges (APC) Policy

The journal does not charge any fees for manuscript submission, peer review, editorial processing, or publication, and no article processing charges (APCs) or other publication fees are required from authors.

The journal operates under a diamond open access model, ensuring that all published content is freely accessible to readers worldwide without financial barriers. Authors can publish their work without incurring any costs, promoting equitable access to scholarly communication and supporting global participation in research.

Any future changes to this policy will be clearly communicated on the journal's website prior to implementation, ensuring transparency and allowing authors to make informed decisions regarding their submissions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use and Disclosure Policy

The journal recognizes the potential benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in manuscript preparation, while prioritizing transparency, scientific integrity, and accountability.

Permitted Use of AI Tools

AI tools are permitted only for language editing, proofreading, formatting, or improving readability of the manuscript. Examples include grammar correction, sentence restructuring, and clarity enhancement.

Disclosure Requirements

Authors must disclose any AI tools used during the preparation of the manuscript. The disclosure should include:

• The name of the AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, etc.)
• The specific purpose of its use (e.g., language editing, summarization, translation)
• The extent of use (e.g., "used for grammar and readability only")

This information should be included in the manuscript, typically in a "Methods" or "Acknowledgements" section, or in a dedicated AI disclosure statement.

Restrictions on AI Use

AI tools must not be used for:

• Generating or fabricating data
• Performing statistical analysis or interpreting results
• Creating or manipulating figures, images, or graphs
• Drafting scientific content or making substantive intellectual contributions
• Writing or rewriting substantial parts of the manuscript without human oversight

Authorship and Accountability

AI tools must not be listed as authors, as they cannot take responsibility for the content. Authors remain fully accountable for:

• The accuracy and validity of the research
• The originality and proper attribution of all content
• The integrity of data, analyses, and conclusions
• Ensuring that all AI-generated text is reviewed and approved by the authors

Non-Disclosure and Misuse

Failure to disclose AI use or misuse of AI tools may lead to corrective actions, including:

• Requesting revisions or additional disclosure
• Publication of a correction or editorial notice
• Rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the article
• Notification to the authors' institutions in cases of serious ethical violation

Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original, accurate, ethically conducted, and prepared in accordance with the journal's policies and internationally accepted standards.

• The work is original and has not been published previously or submitted for publication elsewhere (in whole or in part) without proper disclosure.
• All listed authors meet the journal's authorship criteria and have agreed to be listed as authors.
• All data presented in the manuscript are accurate, complete, and honestly reported, and no data have been fabricated, falsified, or manipulated.
• Ethical approvals and informed consent have been obtained when required, and relevant statements are included in the manuscript.
• Conflicts of interest and funding sources are fully disclosed and declared in the manuscript.
• The manuscript complies with applicable reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, CARE) recommended by the EQUATOR Network, and relevant ethical standards.
• All sources, references, and previous work are properly cited, and plagiarism or redundant publication is avoided.

Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors are expected to:

• Cooperate with editors and reviewers throughout the peer review process.
• Respond to reviewer comments promptly and professionally and provide a clear and detailed response to each point.
• Revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer and editor feedback, while maintaining scientific integrity.

Post-Publication Responsibilities

Authors are required to:

• Assist in addressing any questions or concerns raised after publication, including providing raw data, study protocols, or additional documentation if requested.
• Notify the journal promptly if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of the work.
• Cooperate with the journal in corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary.

Data Availability and Transparency

Authors are encouraged to share data, materials, and protocols whenever possible and to include a Data Availability Statement when applicable. The journal may request raw data or supporting documentation to verify the integrity of the work.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to adhere to these responsibilities may result in actions including:

• Rejection of the manuscript
• Publication of a correction, retraction, or expression of concern
• Notification to the authors' institutions
• Restriction on future submissions to Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology

Authorship Criteria

Authorship criteria are defined in accordance with the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Authorship credit should be based on meeting all four of the following conditions:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published;
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All individuals designated as authors must meet all four criteria. Contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgements section rather than listed as authors.

Author Responsibilities

Authors are expected to:

• Ensure that the work is original and that all data presented are accurate and honestly reported.
• Disclose any conflicts of interest and sources of funding.
• Provide access to data, materials, and protocols upon reasonable request, when applicable.
• Ensure that all authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.
• Agree on the order of authorship and the contribution of each author prior to submission.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for:

• Ensuring that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria.
• Confirming that no qualified contributor has been omitted.
• Managing communication with the journal and ensuring that all co-authors are informed of the submission and any revisions.
• Submitting a complete and accurate author contribution statement when required.

Contributor Acknowledgement

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged, including:

• Technical support or data collection assistance
• Writing assistance or language editing
• General supervision or administrative support
• Provision of materials or resources without intellectual contribution

Unacceptable Authorship Practices

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology does not accept the following practices:

• Guest authorship (including individuals who did not contribute significantly but are listed due to reputation or status)
• Ghost authorship (unacknowledged contributors who meet authorship criteria)
• Gift authorship (honorary authorship without contribution)
• Changes in authorship after submission without a valid reason and without the approval of all authors

Changes in Authorship

Any changes to the authorship list after submission (addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors) require:

• A written request explaining the reason for the change
• Signed consent from all authors, including those being added or removed
• Approval from the Editor-in-Chief

Author Contribution Statements

When applicable, Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology may require a detailed author contribution statement describing the role of each author in the study. This statement helps ensure transparency and accountability in authorship.

Clinical Trial Registration Policy

Prospective registration of all clinical trials in a publicly accessible registry acceptable to the World Health Organization (WHO) or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is required.

Trial Registration Requirements

• Clinical trials must be registered prior to the enrollment of the first participant.
• The manuscript must clearly state the name of the registry and the registration number.
• Examples of acceptable registries include, but are not limited to, ClinicalTrials.gov and other WHO-recognized primary registries.

Manuscripts reporting unregistered or retrospectively registered clinical trials may be rejected unless a justified explanation is provided and accepted by the editorial team. Authors are encouraged to comply with these requirements to ensure the integrity and credibility of clinical research published in Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Requires full transparency regarding any relationships or activities that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the design, conduct, reporting, or interpretation of research. The journal is committed to ensuring that all potential conflicts of interest are disclosed, evaluated, and managed appropriately to maintain the integrity of the publication process.

Author Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest related to the submitted work. Disclosures should include, but are not limited to:

• Employment or consultancy relationships
• Stock ownership, equity interests, or honoraria
• Grants, sponsorships, or other funding sources
• Intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, royalties)
• Personal, professional, or institutional relationships
• Advisory roles or participation in boards/committees
• Any other relationships that could be perceived to influence the work

Authors are required to provide a Conflict of Interest statement at the time of submission. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors should explicitly state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."

Editorial and Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers are expected to act impartially and transparently. They must declare any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling or reviewing manuscripts when such conflicts exist. Potential conflicts may include:

• Personal or professional relationships with the authors
• Direct competition or collaboration with the authors
• Financial interests related to the manuscript topic
• Institutional affiliations or conflicts of institutional policies

Management and Disclosure of Conflicts

All disclosed conflicts of interest will be reviewed and evaluated by the editorial team. When relevant, conflicts will be published alongside the article to ensure transparency for readers. The journal may also take additional actions, such as:

• Requesting clarification or additional disclosure from authors
• Assigning alternative reviewers or editors
• Including an editorial note or statement in the published article

Failure to Disclose

Failure to disclose relevant conflicts of interest may result in corrective actions, including but not limited to:

• Publication of a correction or erratum
• Retraction of the article
• Notification to the authors' institutions
• Restriction on future submissions to Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology

Copyright and Licensing Policy

Authors retain copyright of their published work. Unless otherwise specified, all articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

This license permits non-commercial use, distribution, reproduction, and adaptation in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited. Commercial use of the published material is not permitted without prior written permission.

This approach ensures that authors maintain ownership of their work while promoting open access, wider dissemination, and responsible reuse within the global research community.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

Follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for handling post-publication issues. The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record and will take appropriate actions when errors or ethical concerns are identified.

Corrections

Corrections (errata or corrigenda) are issued for minor errors that do not compromise the overall validity or conclusions of the article. Examples include:

• Typographical errors
• Minor mistakes in data presentation or units
• Errors in author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements
• Minor inaccuracies in references

Corrections are published promptly and are clearly linked to the original article.

Retractions

Retractions are issued when an article contains major errors, evidence of misconduct, or findings that are unreliable. Reasons for retraction may include, but are not limited to:

• Data fabrication or falsification
• Plagiarism or duplicate publication
• Serious ethical violations (e.g., lack of ethical approval, consent issues)
• Major errors that invalidate the conclusions

Retraction notices will clearly state the reason for retraction and will be linked to the original article. The original article will remain accessible with a clear retraction watermark or note, in line with COPE guidelines.

Expressions of Concern

Expressions of Concern may be issued when:

• Serious allegations have been raised and an investigation is ongoing
• The outcome of the investigation is delayed or uncertain
• There is insufficient evidence to warrant an immediate retraction, but concerns remain significant

Expressions of Concern will be clearly linked to the original article and will be updated when the investigation concludes.

Transparency and Record Keeping

All post-publication notices (corrections, retractions, expressions of concern) will be published in a transparent manner and clearly linked to the original article. The journal will maintain an accurate record of all actions taken to ensure accountability and trust in the scientific literature.

Data Sharing and Research Transparency Policy

Is committed to promoting transparency, reproducibility, and openness in research. Authors are encouraged to make the underlying data, materials, and protocols that support their findings available to readers whenever possible, while fully adhering to ethical, legal, and privacy considerations.

Data Availability

Authors should include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript, describing whether and how the data supporting the study's findings can be accessed. Data may be shared through public repositories, institutional databases, or upon reasonable request to the authors.

When data cannot be shared due to confidentiality agreements, legal restrictions, ethical considerations, or privacy concerns, authors must clearly state the reason for the restriction and provide, if possible, guidance on how researchers might access aggregated or anonymized data.

Transparency and Reporting

Authors are expected to present research methods, analyses, and results transparently and comprehensively to enable replication and critical appraisal. This includes:

• Clearly describing study design and methodology
• Reporting all prespecified outcomes
• Disclosing deviations from study protocols or unplanned analyses
• Avoiding selective reporting of results

Encouraging Open Practices

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology supports the use of open research practices, including:

• Sharing code, software, and analysis scripts
• Providing access to supplementary materials and protocols
• Using standardized reporting guidelines appropriate for the study design (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE)

Disclaimer

The content published represents the views, interpretations, and opinions of the individual authors and contributors. These views do not necessarily reflect the opinions, policies, or positions of the Editors, the Editorial Board, or the Publisher of the journal.

While Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology makes every effort to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the information published, the journal does not guarantee the completeness, timeliness, or applicability of the content for any particular purpose. Readers are advised to use their own judgment and consult appropriate experts or authorities before acting on the information contained in the journal.

The journal, editors, editorial board, and publisher shall not be held responsible or liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from the use or interpretation of the material published. This includes, but is not limited to, legal, medical, technical, financial, or professional consequences.

Publication in Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology does not constitute endorsement of any product, service, method, or commercial entity mentioned in the articles. Advertisements, if any, are clearly distinguished from editorial content and do not imply endorsement by the journal or publisher.

By submitting or accessing articles in Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology, readers acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer and understand that all responsibility for the use of published information lies with the reader or user.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Policy

Commitment to DEIA Principles

Is firmly committed to promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) throughout all stages of the editorial, peer review, and publication processes. The journal recognizes that scientific excellence is strengthened by the inclusion of diverse perspectives, experiences, and voices from the global research community.

Equity and Fairness in Editorial Evaluation

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology evaluates all submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical soundness, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, nationality, socioeconomic status, institutional affiliation, political beliefs, or religious background.

Inclusive Authorship and Submissions

The journal actively encourages submissions from researchers across diverse geographic regions and from groups historically underrepresented in scholarly publishing. Manuscripts addressing health disparities, social determinants of health, equity in healthcare delivery, and access to care are particularly welcomed.

Diversity in Editorial Board and Peer Review

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology is committed to fostering diversity and inclusion within its Editorial Board, reviewer pool, and advisory bodies. Efforts are made to ensure representation across disciplines, geographic regions, career stages, and perspectives.

Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers are expected to uphold DEIA principles by conducting their duties with objectivity, professionalism, and cultural sensitivity. Any form of discriminatory behavior or biased evaluation is considered unacceptable.

Accessibility of Published Content

The journal aims to make published content accessible to readers with disabilities by adhering, where feasible, to recognized digital accessibility standards. The journal supports clear language, appropriate formatting, and inclusive communication practices.

Addressing Concerns and Complaints

All concerns related to diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility are treated seriously. Complaints are handled confidentially and investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Alignment with International Standards

This policy aligns with international best practices promoted by organizations such as COPE and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

Ongoing Commitment

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology acknowledges that DEIA is an evolving process. Policies and practices are periodically reviewed and refined to reflect emerging standards, community feedback, and global developments in equitable scholarly publishing.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication Policy

Does not consider manuscripts that have been previously published or are under consideration elsewhere. The journal is committed to preventing duplicate, redundant, and fragmented publication to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

Definitions

• Duplicate publication refers to the publication of the same research findings in more than one journal without proper cross-referencing or justification.
• Redundant publication involves substantial overlap in data, results, or interpretations with previously published work, even if the wording differs.
• Salami slicing refers to the division of a single research project into multiple smaller publications with minimal additional value, often to increase publication count.

Author Responsibility

Authors must disclose any related or overlapping publications at the time of submission, including:

• Previously published articles or conference proceedings
• Manuscripts under review elsewhere
• Preprints or early versions of the manuscript
• Related studies that share data, methods, or results

Permissible Overlap

In some cases, secondary publications may be acceptable (e.g., translations, extended analyses, or follow-up studies), provided that:

• The overlap is clearly disclosed and justified
• The original publication is properly cited
• The new manuscript provides substantial new information or insight

Editorial Actions

If duplicate or redundant publication is identified, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request clarification or revision from the authors
• Reject the manuscript
• Publish a correction, retraction, or expression of concern
• Notify the authors' institutions, employers, or funding bodies

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent Policy

All manuscripts submitted to this journal must comply with internationally accepted ethical standards. The requirement for ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval depends on the nature of the study and the type of data used.

Studies Requiring Ethics Approval

Ethics committee or IRB approval is mandatory for studies involving humans or animals, including but not limited to:

• Clinical or experimental studies involving human participants
• Prospective or retrospective studies using patient data or medical records
• Survey, questionnaire, interview, or focus group studies
• Research involving human biological materials (e.g., blood, tissue, cells)
• Animal studies

For such studies, authors must state the name of the approving ethics committee, approval number, and date of approval in the manuscript.

Studies Not Requiring Ethics Approval

Ethics approval is not required for studies based solely on previously published or publicly available data, including:

• Systematic reviews
• Meta-analyses
• Narrative reviews
• Scoping reviews
• Bibliometric analyses
• Theoretical, conceptual, or methodological studies
• In silico or bioinformatic studies using publicly accessible databases only

Example statement: "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that synthesize data from previously published studies and publicly accessible sources are exempt from ethical committee approval, as they do not involve new data collection or direct contact with human subjects."

Case Reports

Ethics committee approval is generally not required for single case reports. However, written informed consent must be obtained from the patient, and all identifying information must be fully anonymized. For case series involving multiple patients, ethics approval may be required.

Author Responsibility

The authors are solely responsible for ensuring that ethical approval requirements are correctly assessed and fulfilled. Manuscripts that do not include appropriate ethical statements may be rejected or returned during the editorial review process.

Funding Disclosure Policy

Requires full transparency regarding all sources of financial support for the research and manuscript preparation. Authors must disclose any funding received for the conduct of the study, data analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding Information

Funding disclosures must include:

• The name of the funding organization(s)
• Grant numbers or project identifiers (if applicable)
• The role of the funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, manuscript preparation, and publication decisions
• Any financial support for open access fees or publication charges

No Funding Statement

If no funding was received for the study, authors must explicitly state:

"The authors declare that no funding was received for this study."

Additional Considerations

• Authors should also disclose in-kind support, such as provision of equipment, materials, software, or services.
• Funding provided to the institution rather than directly to the authors should still be disclosed if it supported the work.
• If multiple funding sources exist, authors should list all sources and clearly specify the contributions of each.

Editorial Actions

Failure to disclose funding sources or inaccurate reporting of funding may result in:

• Requests for correction or clarification
• Publication of an erratum or correction notice
• Retraction of the article in cases of serious nondisclosure

Human and Animal Rights Policy

Requires that all research involving human participants or animals be conducted in accordance with internationally accepted ethical standards. The journal is committed to ensuring that studies uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct, participant safety, and animal welfare.

Human Subjects

Studies involving human participants must respect the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of all participants. Vulnerable populations must receive special protection, and measures taken to safeguard confidentiality and privacy should be clearly described. Ethical approval from an appropriate review board or ethics committee must be obtained and documented.

Animal Studies

Research involving animals must comply with national and international guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. Authors must clearly state that animal welfare regulations were followed and that the study received approval from a recognized ethics committee or institutional review board.

Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology reserves the right to request additional documentation regarding ethical approval, informed consent, or animal welfare compliance, as necessary to ensure adherence to ethical standards.

Image Integrity and Manipulation Policy

All images submitted must accurately represent the original data. Any image manipulation that alters, misrepresents, or could potentially mislead readers regarding the results is strictly prohibited.

Acceptable adjustments include uniform modifications to brightness or contrast, provided these changes do not distort the scientific content and are disclosed when necessary.

Suspected cases of inappropriate image manipulation may lead to manuscript rejection or, if discovered after publication, article retraction, in accordance with the journal's ethical standards and the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Open Access and Archiving Policy

All articles published are immediately made available as open access and are freely accessible to readers worldwide. To ensure the long-term preservation and integrity of published content, the journal uses its own digital archiving system, which securely stores all articles and associated metadata. This system provides continuous access to the journal's content, even in the event of technical disruptions or platform changes.

In addition to the journal's internal archiving system, Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology supports indexing and long-term preservation through recognized repositories and databases, in line with best practices in scholarly publishing.

Authors are permitted to deposit the published version of their articles in institutional or subject-specific repositories. Such deposits must acknowledge the original publication in Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology and comply with the journal's archiving guidelines.

The journal's archiving system is designed to meet international standards for digital preservation, ensuring that articles remain accessible, citable, and protected for the long term.

Peer Review Process

Operates a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Review Procedure

1. All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to assess scope, originality, ethical compliance, and methodological quality.
2. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor.
3. At least two independent expert reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript.
4. Reviewers provide structured, constructive, and confidential reports.
5. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editorial decision may be one of the following:
   • Accept
   • Minor revision
   • Major revision
   • Reject

Review Timeline

The journal aims to provide an initial editorial decision within a reasonable timeframe. However, the review duration may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

• Declare any potential conflicts of interest
• Treat manuscripts as confidential documents
• Provide objective, evidence-based, and respectful feedback
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe

The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority over all editorial decisions.

Plagiarism and Similarity Check Policy

Is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. All submitted manuscripts undergo plagiarism and similarity screening using recognized similarity detection software (iThenticate) prior to peer review.

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• Direct copying of text, tables, or figures without proper citation
• Substantial similarity to previously published works
• Self-plagiarism or redundant publication without appropriate acknowledgment
• Paraphrasing without attribution or presenting others' ideas as original

Similarity Screening and Thresholds

Manuscripts are evaluated for similarity against published literature and other sources. The editorial team will assess similarity reports based on:

• The overall similarity percentage
• The nature and location of similar text (e.g., introduction vs. results)
• Whether overlapping content is properly cited and justified
• Whether similarity reflects legitimate reuse (e.g., methods) or constitutes plagiarism

Editorial Actions

Depending on the severity of the similarity, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request revisions and proper citation
• Return the manuscript to authors for rewriting
• Reject the manuscript
• Require additional documentation or explanation

Severe Cases

Severe or intentional plagiarism may result in:

• Rejection of the manuscript
• Notification to the authors' institutions, employers, or funding bodies
• Publication of a retraction or expression of concern in accordance with COPE guidelines

Author Responsibility

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all content is original and properly cited. All sources must be acknowledged, and any reuse of previously published material must be clearly indicated and permitted.

Post-Publication Discussions and Correspondence Policy

Provides a framework for scholarly discussion and constructive critique of published articles through letters to the editor, correspondence, or formal commentaries. Such post-publication dialogue contributes to scientific transparency, correction of the record, and ongoing scholarly debate.

Submission and Review Process

All correspondence submissions are subject to editorial review to assess relevance, scientific merit, and adherence to the journal's policies. When appropriate, submissions may also undergo peer review. The editorial team reserves the right to reject correspondence that does not meet scientific or ethical standards.

Author Response

Authors of the original article may be invited to respond to correspondence. Responses are reviewed by the editorial team and, if necessary, may also be peer reviewed. Correspondence and responses may be published together to provide balanced context.

Content Requirements

Correspondence should be:

• Evidence-based and supported by appropriate references or data
• Focused on scientific content, methodology, interpretation, or implications
• Clearly written and concise

Conduct and Language

All correspondence must adhere to professional and ethical standards. Submissions must be:

• Respectful and free of personal attacks
• Non-defamatory and non-discriminatory
• Free of inflammatory or abusive language
• Compliant with applicable laws and journal policies

Editorial Discretion

The editorial team retains full discretion over whether correspondence is published. The journal may decline correspondence that is:

• Redundant, irrelevant, or lacking scientific merit
• Primarily aimed at promoting a commercial product or service
• Based on unsubstantiated claims or speculation
• Already addressed in published corrections or discussions

Post-Publication Updates

When correspondence raises significant concerns about the validity or integrity of a published article, the editorial team may initiate further investigation and, if necessary, publish corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Publication Ethics and Ethical Standards

Is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and scientific integrity. The journal follows the guidelines and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

• Submit original work that has not been published or submitted elsewhere.
• Ensure the accuracy, integrity, and reproducibility of the data presented.
• Disclose all sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest.
• Ensure that all listed authors meet the criteria for authorship and that no eligible contributors are omitted.
• Obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee and informed consent from participants when required, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
• Protect patient confidentiality and obtain explicit consent for the publication of identifiable clinical data or images.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are required to:

• Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations.
• Declare any conflicts of interest and decline the review if necessary.
• Refrain from using unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

• Ensuring a fair, unbiased, and confidential peer-review process.
• Making editorial decisions based solely on scientific merit, originality, and ethical compliance.
• Managing conflicts of interest transparently.
• Taking appropriate action in cases of suspected misconduct, including issuing corrections or retractions when necessary.

Publication Misconduct

The journal does not tolerate any form of publication misconduct, including but not limited to:

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
• Data fabrication or falsification
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Salami publication
• Improper authorship practices
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Inappropriate image or data manipulation

Handling of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct are investigated in accordance with COPE flowcharts. Depending on the outcome, the journal may request explanations from the authors, contact relevant institutions, and take appropriate actions such as rejection, correction, retraction, or publication of an expression of concern.

Corrections and Retractions

When errors or ethical issues are identified, the journal may issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Data Transparency

Authors are encouraged to provide data availability statements, share underlying data when possible, and register clinical studies in publicly accessible trial registries.

Reporting Guidelines Policy

Requires authors to adhere to internationally recognized reporting guidelines relevant to their study design. The use of appropriate reporting standards ensures transparency, reproducibility, and quality of scientific reporting.

Applicable Reporting Guidelines

Authors should follow the reporting guidelines that correspond to their study type, including but not limited to:

• CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized controlled trials
• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) for observational studies
• CARE (Case Report Guidelines) for case reports

Checklist and Supporting Documents

When applicable, authors must submit the relevant checklist and flow diagram alongside the manuscript. Examples include:

• CONSORT checklist and flow diagram for clinical trials
• PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for systematic reviews
• STROBE checklist for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies
• CARE checklist for case reports

Editorial Assessment

The editorial team may request additional information or clarification if the reporting is incomplete or unclear. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the required reporting guidelines may be returned to authors for revision or rejected.

Authors' Responsibility

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all required reporting standards are followed and that the manuscript includes all necessary information for readers to evaluate the study design, methods, results, and conclusions.