^

Focus and Scope

Peer Review Process

Open Access Policy

Archiving

Permanency of Articles

Editorial Independence

Conflicts of Interests

Disclosure of Funding Sources

Content License

Ethical Publishing Practice

Authorship

Citations

Corrections and Retractions

Appeals and Complaints

Advertising Policies

Ethical Checklists

Salvia Medical Basic Sciences (SMBS) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing by SalviaPub, a part of Salvia Medical Sciences Ltd. that publishes the latest research and findings including original article, meta-analyses, reviews, letter to the editor, and study protocol those performed by medical researchers all over the world.

The Journal follows the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.

Conference proceedings will be published electronically as a supplement issue or in the form of the abstract book and all requests from biomedical conferences are welcome.

 

SMBS is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions. SMBS also endorses the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

The articles are primarily evaluated by our statisticians and internal screeners who check the articles for any methodological flaws, format, and their compliance with the journal’s instructions. Then a submission code will be allocated, and all the future contacts should be based on this code. All received manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by at least two international reviewers and two of the authors' suggested reviewers if he/she meets our minimum requirements and accepts our invitation.

The manuscripts will be assigned to one of our section editors; the general condition and abstract of the manuscript will first be evaluated by three of our editors related to the subject. The manuscript will be sent to the reviewers if it meets the selection criteria of our journal. All reviewers are asked to fill in the review form, write down their opinion and rate the manuscript. The editorial board will then make their verdict according to the reviewers' comments. The final review process will be discussed in regular editorial board sessions and based on the comments, and the journal’s scope, the Editors will decide which articles should be published.

SMBS will inform the authors within a maximum of 4-6 weeks of submission of the first decision.

 

This journal provides immediate Open Access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

SMBS has taken steps to ensure that all open access articles published by us are deposited in several safe open access archives. Should SMBS be sold, or fail, open access to the articles published is guaranteed to continue via those archives. If and when a change of ownership should be considered, SMBS editorial office will be asked to judge and advise whether sufficient guarantees to continue a policy of unconditional open access for research articles are being offered and agreed by any prospective new owner. SMBS will not enter into a change of ownership agreement unless the SMBS editorial office accepts these guarantees. Besides, once an article has been published, we do not allow it to be changed, leading to the following policies.

1. Article corrections and retractions

Corrections to or retractions of published articles will be made by publishing a correction or retraction note and without altering the original article in any way other than to add a prominent link to the note. In this way, the original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent correction or retraction will be widely indexed.

2. Article removal

The preservation of scientific research is a cornerstone of science, and as such we will use our best efforts to ensure that material published by SMBS is preserved and remains available for access. However, in the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory we may have no option but to remove that material from our site and those sites on which we have deposited the material in question.

SMBS, therefore, reserves the right to cease to make available articles, or relevant article content, that it has been advised are potentially defamatory, or that infringes any intellectual property right or are otherwise unlawful. Where this occurs, the article will remain indexed. However, in place of the article or content, an appropriate explanatory note will be attached. An example of such an explanatory note is as follows:

"SMBS regrets that this article is no longer available to avoid threatened legal claims."

 

The editor in chief makes the final decision regarding publication or rejection of the submitted articles without the interference of its owner or economic interests.

 

1. Overview 

A competing interest is anything that interferes with or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to SMBS.

Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relation to an organization or another person.

Declaring all potential competing interests is a requirement at SMBS and is integral to the transparent reporting of research.

Failure to declare competing interests can result in immediate rejection of a manuscript. If an undisclosed competing interest comes to light after publication, SMBS will take action in accordance with COPE guidelines and issue a public notification to the community. 

2. What to declare?

All potentially competing interests (see below) must be declared if they occurred within 5 years of conducting, or preparing for publication, the research under consideration.

Interests outside the 5-year time frame must also be declared if they could reasonably be perceived as competing according to the definition above.

2.1. Financial competing interests

Financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

• Ownership of stocks or shares
• Paid employment or consultancy
• Board membership
• Patent applications (pending or actual), including individual applications or those belonging to the institution to which the authors are affiliated and from which the authors may benefit
• Research grants (from any source, restricted or unrestricted)
• Travel grants and honoraria for speaking or participation at meetings
• Gifts

2.2. Non-financial competing interests

Non-financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

• Acting as an expert witness
• Membership in a government or other advisory board
• Relationship (paid or unpaid) with organizations and funding bodies including nongovernmental organizations, research institutions, or charities
• Membership of lobbying or advocacy organizations
• Writing or consulting for an educational company
• Personal relationships (i.e., friend, spouse, family member, current or previous mentor, adversary) with individuals involved in the submission or evaluation of a paper, such as authors, reviewers, editors, or members of the editorial board of SMBS
• Personal convictions (political, religious, ideological, or other) related to a paper's topic that might interfere with an unbiased publication process (at the stage of authorship, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication)

3. Who must declare competing interests?

3.1. Authors

At the time of submission, authors must state what competing interests are relevant to the submitted research. These may include but are not limited to:

• Names of all funding sources
• Description of funder’s role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the paper; and/or decision to submit for publication
• Whether they have served or currently serve on the editorial board of the journal to which they are submitting
• Whether they have acted as an expert witness in relevant legal proceedings
  Whether they have sat or currently sit on a committee for an organization that may benefit from publication of the paper

3.2. Editors and reviewers

Editors (professional or academic, paid or unpaid) and reviewers must declare their own competing interests and if necessary, disqualify themselves from involvement in the assessment of a manuscript.

Common reasons for editors and reviewers to recuse themselves from the peer review process may include but are not limited to:

• They work at the same institution or organization as an author, currently or recently
• They collaborate with an author, currently or recently
• They have published with an author during the past 5 years
• They have held grants with an author, currently or recently
• They have a personal relationship with an author that does not allow them to evaluate the manuscript objectively

3.3. Readers

Anyone who comments on published SMBS articles must declare all competing interests (financial or non-financial) at the time of posting the comment.

4. Editorial actions and decisions

SMBS editors must take all competing interests into account during the review process and ensure that any relevant ones are declared in the published article.

SMBS editors will not publish commissioned or any other non-research articles if they are aware of a competing interest that, in their judgment, could introduce bias or a reasonable perception of bias.

SMBS editors do not consult reviewers who have competing interests that, in the editors' judgment, could interfere with the unbiased review. 

 

1. Overview 

SMBS authors are required to declare what support they received to carry out their research. Declaring funding sources acknowledges funders’ contributions, fulfills funding requirements and promotes greater transparency in the research process.

We support GPP2 Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research.

2. What to declare?

Each author must individually declare all sources of funding received for the research submitted to the journal. This information includes the name of granting agencies, grant numbers, and a description of each funder’s role. If the funder has played no role in the research, this must be stated as well.

Authors are not required to provide the complete list of every single grant that supports them if the grant is not related to the research published

3. Funding statement

A Funding Statement is included in the metadata of each published article. The Funding Statement includes the funding information declared by the authors.

Inaccurate information about funding discovered after publication may require correction. 

4. How to declare?

Funding information is entered into the online submission system.

5. Funding from tobacco companies

SMBS will not consider for publication manuscripts in which any of the research costs or authors' salaries have been funded, in whole or in part, by a tobacco company.

 

SMBS applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to works we publish. This license was developed to facilitate open access – namely, free immediate access to, and unrestricted reuse of, original works of all types.

Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles, as long as the author and original source are properly cited.

1. Using SMBS content

No permission is required from the authors or the publishers to reuse or repurpose SMBS content provided the article is cited. In most cases, appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the article.

If the item you plan to reuse is not part of a published article (e.g., a featured issue image), then indicate the originator of the work, and the volume, issue, and date of the journal in which the item appeared.

For any reuse or redistribution of a work, you must also make clear the license terms under which the work was published.

2. Figures, Tables, and Images

Figures, tables, and images are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.

3. Data

If any relevant accompanying data is submitted to repositories with stated licensing policies, the policies should not be more restrictive than CC-BY.

4. Submitting copyrighted or proprietary content

Do not submit any figures, photos, tables, or other works that have been previously copyrighted or that contain proprietary data unless you have and can supply written permission from the copyright holder to use that content. This includes:

• Maps and satellite images
• Slogans and logos
• Social media content

 

1. Overview

SMBS is a member of the COPE, abide by its Code of Conduct, and aim to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines. Also, SMBS endorses the WAME Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions and the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to be aware of and comply with, best practice in publication ethics.

Authors are expected to be aware of and comply with, best practice in publication ethics specifically but not limited to authorship (for example avoidance of ghost or guest authorship), dual submission, plagiarism, manipulation of figures, competing interests and compliance with policies on research ethics. Details are provided below or in related documents

Reviewers and editors are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence, and to declare any competing interests.

We will vigorously investigate allegations of research or publication misconduct, and we reserve the right to contact authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies if needed.

In cases of suspected or alleged misconduct, we will follow the COPE flowcharts and may also seek advice at the COPE forum. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction.

If you have any concerns about potential misconduct, please email the journal. Address correspondence to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, or Editorial Director as appropriate.

Additional resources on publication ethics are available from COPE and WAME.

3. Ethics and consent

2.1. Ethics approval

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to the Editor on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, the Editor may contact the ethics committee for further information.

2.2. Retrospective ethics approval

If a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained, and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor's discretion.

2.3. Consent to participate

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16), and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. For manuscript reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example unconscious patients) where there is the potential for coercion (for example prisoners) or where consent may not have been fully informed, manuscripts will be considered at the editor’s discretion. In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained.

2.4. Reporting guidelines for specific study types

Authors are expected to comply with standard reporting guidelines for study designs.

2.5. Human subjects research

Researchers submitting studies involving human participants must meet the following requirements:

• Obtain prior approval for human subjects research by an institutional review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee(s)
• Declare compliance with ethical practices upon submission of a manuscript
• Report details on how informed consent for the research was obtained (or explain why consent was not obtained)
• Submit, upon request from the journal, documentation from the review board or ethics committee confirming approval of the research.
• Confirm that an identified individual has provided written consent for the use of that information

2.6. Patient privacy and informed consent for publication

We uphold the right to anonymity and take all necessary steps to protect the privacy of those who participate in research.

Authors must avoid providing identifying information unless strictly necessary for the submission. If identifying information is necessary, authors must confirm that the individual has provided written consent for the use of that information as per the Consent Form for Publication in SMBS. Download the consent form.

All submissions are checked for documentation of patient consent for the publication and any potentially identifying information. Submissions that include identifying patient information without appropriate patient consent will not be considered for publication.

If identifying information is discovered after publication, the article will be temporarily withdrawn while any content compromising participant privacy is removed.

Read the Instructions for Authors for more information.

2.7. Cell lines

At submission, authors must declare what cell lines were used. Describing sources of cell lines indicates their origin and allows for the research to be reproduced.

For de novo cell lines derived from human tissue, authors must confirm that they obtained approval from an institutional review board or equivalent ethics committee and consent from the donor or next of kin. Manuscripts using cell lines are checked at the initial submission. Those that do not meet the requirements for cell line research will be rejected. Issues with cell lines’ identity, ethical oversight, or potential contamination discovered after publication may lead to a correction or retraction.

Editors and reviewers should evaluate cell line information during peer review and notify the journal if any concerns arise.

 2.8. Animal research

Studies involving animals must be conducted according to internationally-accepted standards. Authors must obtain prior approval from their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics committee(s).

The name of the IACUC or equivalent ethics committee, as well as relevant permit numbers, must be provided at submission.

2.8.1. Non-human primates

Non-human primate studies must be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Weatherall report, The use of non-human primates in research. Manuscripts describing research involving non-human primates must include details of animal welfare, including information about housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment, and steps taken to minimize suffering, including use of anesthesia and method of sacrifice if appropriate.

2.8.2. Reporting guidelines

We encourage authors to comply with the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs).

The ARRIVE guidelines can be applied to any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals. They aim to improve standards of reporting to ensure that the data from animal experiments can be fully scrutinized, reproduced, and utilized. Relevant information should be included in the appropriate section of the article (e.g., title, abstract, or methods, etc.), as outlined in the ARRIVE guidelines. Where research could be confused as pertaining to human clinical research, the animal model should also be noted in the article title.

2.8.3. Unregulated research

Where unregulated animals are used or ethics approval is not required by a specific committee, authors should include a clear statement of this fact and the reasons why ethical approval is not required. The journal staff and editors will assess these situations on a case-by-case basis.

2.8.4. Policy enforcement

All submissions describing research involving animals will be checked by journal staff and editors to ensure that the requirements above are met. Failure to meet requirements may be grounds for rejection.

We reserve the right to reject work that the editors believe has not been conducted to a high ethical standard, even if authors have obtained formal approval or if approval is not required under local regulations.

If concerns are discovered after publication, the journal staff will investigate and, should substantial concerns arise regarding the handling of animals or oversight for the research; we may issue a correction or retraction as appropriate. We also reserve the right to contact the authors’ institution, ethics committee or other appropriate bodies in relation to these concerns.

3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism is not acceptable in SMBS submissions. Plagiarized content will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines.

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• Directly copying text from other sources without attribution
• Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources without attribution
• Reusing text from your own previous publications without attribution or agreement of the editor (read the COPE guidelines on text recycling)

  Exception: Reusing text from the Methods section in the author ’s previous publications, with attribution to the source, is acceptable.

• Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language without attribution

SMBS uses Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate) to screen submitted content for originality. We will do a follow-up investigation if the software raises any concerns. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may 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. We expect that editors and reviewers will be vigilant in their evaluation of SMBS submissions and will notify the journal about any plagiarism identified.

4. Confidentiality

We are committed to ensuring the integrity of the peer review process, in accordance with COPE guidelines. All submitted material should be treated as strictly confidential until published. The peer review process is confidential to all parties. Correspondence as part of the review process is also to be treated confidentially by all parties, including authors. Authors may provide basic details about the nature of the research presented in manuscripts currently under review. Editors and reviewers are required to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence and should not share information about submissions with any other parties unless previously agreed with the editor. The involvement of a third party in the review must be declared at the time of the submission of the review. We expect that editors and reviewers will not make use of any material or take advantage of any information they gain through the peer review process. We will follow up on any and all breaches of confidentiality. If there are any concerns about misconduct during the review process, we will follow COPE guidelines in investigating them.

5. Anonymity

Reviewers may identify themselves by signing their names at the time reviews are submitted if they wish.

6. Submission and publication of related studies

6.1. Author requirements

Upon submission of a manuscript, authors must indicate whether there are any related manuscripts under consideration or published elsewhere. If related work has been submitted or published elsewhere, authors must include a copy of it with their submission and describe its relation to the submitted work.

Prior publication of research as a thesis, presentation at medical or scientific conferences, or posting on preprint servers will not preclude consideration of your manuscript.

SMBS supports the public disclosure of all clinical trial results, as mandated, for example, by the 2007 FDA Amendments Act. Prior disclosure of results on a clinical trial registry site will not affect consideration.

6.2. Editor and reviewer requirements

Reviewers and editors should evaluate any related content and notify the journal of overlap. Editors and reviewers should alert the journal if they identify duplicate submissions or publications during the review process.

6.3. Policy enforcement

If related content is found to be too similar to the SMBS submission, or if a duplicate submission is discovered, we will reject the manuscript.

Duplicate content discovered after publication will be addressed depending on the degree of overlap. SMBS may issue a correction or a retraction as appropriate.

6.4. Figure preparation

Image files should not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information present in the original image.

6.5. Biosecurity and dual-use research of concern

We recognize that certain research may fall into the category of “dual-use research of concern.” This is defined by the NSABB as any "biological research with the legitimate scientific purpose that may be misused to pose a biologic threat to public health and/or national security." As an Open Access publisher, SMBS remains committed to the widespread dissemination of research while being sensitive to the issues of responsible publication standards. In this context, we assess the risks and benefits of the research. If the risks outweigh the benefits, we will not consider the research for publication.

6.5.1. Author requirements

Authors are obligated to disclose potential bioethics/dual use concerns to the journal office at the time of initial submission.

6.5.2. Editor and reviewer requirements

Editors and reviewers are expected to evaluate potential risks and alert the journal with any concerns.

6.5.3. Policy enforcement

We follow standards set by national and public agencies, and we work with these agencies to verify potential risks. We may also refer concerns to the SMBS Dual Use Committee for further deliberation. Manuscripts are checked at submission for any potential risks. Issues identified at submission may lead to rejection of the manuscript. If risks are identified after the publication of an article, we will take steps to minimize that risk in accordance with prevailing guidelines. We will follow up with authors’ institutions depending on the severity of the issues.

7. Research conducted by SMBS

In our efforts to improve the peer review system and scientific communication, we have an ongoing research program on the processes we use in the course of manuscript handling at the SMBS. If you are a reviewer, author, or editor at SMBS, and you wish to opt out of this research, please contact the journal office. Participation does not affect the editorial consideration of submitted manuscripts, nor SMBS' policies relating to the confidentiality of authors, reviewers, or manuscripts.

Individual research projects will be subject to appropriate ethical consideration and approval and if necessary individuals will be contacted for specific consent to participate.

 

Everyone listed as an author should meet our criteria for authorship. Everyone who meets our criteria for authorship must be listed as an author.

We expect that all authors will take public responsibility for the content of the manuscript submitted to SMBS. The contributions of all authors must be described.

All authors will be contacted by email at the submission to ensure that they are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, and its authorship. 

1. Authorship criteria 

An 'author' is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. We recommend that you adhere to the guidelines for authorship that are applicable in your research field or, in the absence of any guidelines, to the ICMJE guidelines. According to the ICMJE guidelines, to qualify as an author one should have:

1. made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
2. been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content; and
4. agreed 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.

Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship.

Authors wishing to make changes to authorship will be asked to complete our Change of Authorship Form. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.

2. Group authorship

The ICMJE recommends that group authorship adheres to the following guidelines:

When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals generally list other members of the group in the Acknowledgments. The NLM indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript; it also lists the names of collaborators if they are listed in Acknowledgments.

Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.

3. Author contributions

The contributions of all authors must be described. SMBS has adopted the CRediT Taxonomy of author contributions. As the submitting author will be responsible for completing this information at submission, it is expected that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their contributions ahead of this time. 

4. Acknowledgments

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘Acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.

5. Corresponding author responsibilities

The corresponding author takes responsibility for and speaks on behalf of all authors.  

5.1. Pre-publication

• Ensure that the manuscript is in full adherence to all SMBS Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics
• Ensure that all authors have access to the final version of the manuscript that is submitted to SMBS, and agree to the author list and author contributions. 
• Ensure that all authors have seen the final draft of the manuscript before it is published.
• Provide to SMBS written confirmation that all authors consent to any requested changes in the manuscript’s authorship.  

5.2. Post-publication

• Continue to be the point of contact for queries about the published paper.
• Inform all coauthors of any matters arising and ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. 

6. Professional medical writers

The involvement of scientific or medical writers or anyone else who assisted with the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers should be acknowledged explicitly in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section as appropriate.

7. Author identification

SMBS endorses ORCID and encourages every author, editor, and reviewer to register and use their ORCID.  We participate in the auto-update feature implemented by Crossref such that when a paper is published, the authors’ ORCIDs (where we have them) are deposited and subsequently used to update each author’s ORCID record.

In the near future, SMBS will begin requiring corresponding authors to provide their ORCID when submitting a manuscript.

8. Editor and reviewer requirements

Editors should be aware of the author list and author affiliations when they invite reviewers to review a manuscript in order to reduce the likelihood of inviting individuals with potentially competing interests that would disqualify them from participating in the peer review process.

Editors and reviewers should contact to SMBS with any concerns about the author list or if they identify any potential competing interests that should be declared or that mean they should recuse themselves from the process.

 

Research articles and non-research articles (e.g., Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged.

Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:

• Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors' own new ideas or findings or general knowledge) should use a citation.
• Authors should avoid citing derivations of original work. For example, they should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites an original work.
• Authors should ensure that their citations are accurate (i.e., they should ensure the citation supports the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make).
• Authors should not cite sources that they have not read.
• Authors should not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.
• Authors should avoid citing work solely from one country.
• Authors should not use an excessive number of citations to support one point.
• Ideally, authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review where possible.
• Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.

 

Rarely, it may be necessary for SMBS to publish corrections to, or retractions of, articles published in its journal, so as to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

In line with SMBS’s Permanency policy, corrections to, or retractions of, published articles will be made by publishing an Erratum or a Retraction article, without altering the original article in any way other than to add a prominent link to the Erratum/Retraction article. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Erratum or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

1. Corrections

Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of an Erratum that is indexed and linked to the original article.

2. Retractions

On rare occasions, when the scientific information in an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. SMBS will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retraction articles are indexed and linked to the original article.

 

SMBS adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints. Please contact SMBS via email (smbs@salviapub.com) for more information

 

SMBS advertising policy is consistent with the principles mentioned in the Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals, which issued by the WAME.

http://www.wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie

 

1. Authors' responsibilities

• Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
• Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
• Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
• Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
• Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
• Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
• Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
• Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
• Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
• Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

 

2. Peer-review/responsibility for the reviewers

• Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
• Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Reviewers should not review 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.

 

3. Editorial responsibilities

• Editors (Deputy Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
• Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
• Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
• Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
• Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
• Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope.
• Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
• Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journal).
• Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
• Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
• Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
• Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
• Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
• Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.