Editorial policies
Overview
At BSHJ, we uphold the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing. Our journal fully embrace the guidelines provided by respected associations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, the Council of Science Editors' Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
When authors submit a manuscript to our journal, they affirm that all listed contributors have thoroughly reviewed and agreed with the content of the submitted manuscripts and that the submission aligns with the journal's policies. Our unwavering commitment lies in maintaining the highest ethical standards in publishing and ensuring the utmost integrity and credibility of the research we publish.
Table of contents
Ethics and consent
Ethics approval
The BSHJ adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adhere to their Best Practice Guidelines. All research submissions are required to include a statement confirming that ethical approval was sought for the study, along with details such as the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), approval reference number/ID, and confirmation of informed consent from participants. Even if a research study has received approval from a research ethics committee or institutional review board, authors might be asked by editors to provide additional comprehensive information regarding the ethical aspects of their work. Additionally, research involving human subjects, human tissue, or human data must align with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been granted approval from an appropriate ethics committee. Manuscripts may be rejected if the editors determine that the research was not conducted within a suitable ethical framework. In some cases, the editors may also communicate with the relevant ethics committee at the institutions for further clarification.Accusations of improper publication behavior, both prior to and after the release of content, will be subject to a thorough examination. We retain the authority to engage with authors' institutions, funding sources, or governing bodies if deemed necessary. Should concrete proof of misconduct be identified, appropriate actions will be initiated to rectify the scientific documentation, potentially involving the provision of corrections or even a formal retraction.It is expected that authors possess a comprehensive understanding of publication ethics, particularly in relation to authorship, simultaneous submissions, plagiarism, manipulation of figures, conflicting interests, and adherence to research ethics norms. When instances of potential misconduct arise, adherence to the standards and procedures set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) will be observed, and guidance from the COPE forum will be sought.
Retrospective ethics approval
Securing ethics committee approval for a study after it has already begun, a process referred to as retrospective ethics approval, is generally challenging. In such cases, the submission might not meet the criteria for peer review. The determination of whether to proceed with peer review in such scenarios lies within the discretion of the journal's editors.
Patient consent and confidentiality
For any material submitted to BSHJ that includes personal medical details pertaining to a readily identifiable living person, explicit consent from the patient is imperative prior to publication. This necessitates that all individuals under study must endorse an informed consent form subsequent to reviewing the relevant information document. If it is unattainable to secure consent due to the inability to trace a patient in a study, the publication will be viable only if the information can be effectively anonymized. Anonymization denotes ensuring that neither the individual nor any other party can definitively identify the specific person. In the event of the patient's demise, authors should consider obtaining consent from a family member as a gesture of courtesy and adherence to medical ethics. If contacting relatives is not feasible, the journals will assess the significance of the case, the potential for identification, and the possibility of causing offense when making a decision about publishing a submitted paper.Images, including but not limited to x-rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, pathology slides, or depictions of unidentifiable body parts, can be employed without explicit consent, provided they undergo anonymization through the elimination of identifying features. Additionally, these images should not be accompanied by text that could potentially disclose the patient's identity.
Research involving animals
When conducting experimental research involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates, it is imperative to adhere to institutional, national, or international guidelines. Approval from a suitable ethics committee, where applicable, should also be obtained. The Basel Declaration lays out fundamental principles for animal research, and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has published ethical guidelines in this domain. For experimental studies that include animals owned by clients, authors must furnish documentation of informed consent from the respective clients or owners. Furthermore, a stringent level of veterinary care adhering to best practices is essential.
Reporting Guidelines Standards:
Writers are advised to employ appropriate research reporting protocols associated with the study type as offered by the EQUATOR Network during the manuscript preparation process. It is recommended that authors follow these guidelines while composing their manuscript, and peer reviewers will be prompted to consult these lists when assessing such research. By doing so, it guarantees that authors have furnished adequate details for editors, peer reviewers, and readers to comprehend the research methodology and assess the credibility of the results.
The key reporting guidelines are:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs): CONSORT guidelines
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA guidelines and MOOSE guidelines
Observational studies in epidemiology: STROBE guidelines
Diagnostic accuracy studies: STARD guidelines
Quality improvement studies: SQUIRE guidelines
Qualitative research: SRQR or COREQ
Economic evaluations: CHEERS
Case reports: the CARE case report guidelines
Statistical methods
Authors should provide comprehensive details concerning the statistical techniques and metrics utilized in their study. This should encompass a rationale for the selection of the specific statistical test employed, as outlined in the SAMPL guidelines. Reviewers will assess the adequacy of the statistical methods and, if deemed essential, the submission might undergo additional scrutiny by statistical experts. The editorial team may also seek advice from a methodology specialist.
Authorship
Authorship typically refers to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to a published research study. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) suggests that authorship should adhere to four key criteria:
- Substantial involvement in conceiving, designing, acquiring, analyzing, or interpreting data.
- Participation in drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
- Granting final approval for the version that gets published.
- Willingness to take responsibility for all aspects of the work, ensuring proper investigation and resolution of any queries regarding accuracy or integrity.
Apart from taking responsibility for their own contributions, authors should also be able to attribute specific sections of the work to their co-authors. Furthermore, authors should have faith in the credibility of their co-authors' contributions. Anyone listed as an author must satisfy all four authorship criteria, and individuals meeting these criteria must be acknowledged as authors. Engaging solely in activities like securing funding, data collection, technical support, writing aid, or overseeing the research group does not qualify for authorship. Individuals who do not fulfill all four criteria should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.
Acknowledgements
People who offered support for the submitted work but do not fulfill all four authorship criteria should be acknowledged by having their names and contributions mentioned in the "Acknowledgements" section. Authors are responsible for ensuring that individuals named in the "Acknowledgements" have provided their consent to be listed for their specified contributions to the work.Any financial or material assistance should be duly acknowledged. This encompasses all forms of funding and support for the project or study, including grants from various sources, contributions from individuals or organizations, as well as support from commercial entities. This also extends to consultancies and direct payments made to researchers. Additionally, the contribution of scientific or medical writers, or any other individuals who aided in preparing the manuscript, should be recognized. Their funding source should be acknowledged following the guidelines outlined by the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA).
Author information
Journal publish author information to facilitate recognition within the scientific community for both the authors and their affiliated institutions. This information is crucial for retrieving records in databases and bibliographic indexes. However, it's important to note that some databases might not include or list complete author information. We acknowledge that certain authors possess multi-part first, middle, or last names, and some may lack a middle name entirely. Furthermore, in some cases, a portion of an author's first or last name might have been used as a middle name initial in a previous publication.
The BSHJ publishes author information, which includes names and affiliations, exactly as provided by the corresponding author during the submission process. The goal is to ensure accuracy and minimize errors related to the spelling or presentation of author names in bibliographic databases and indexes. To achieve this, authors are required to review and approve an automatically-generated representation of their author information upon submission. This representation mirrors how author information will appear in databases such as PubMed and Scopus, and it aims to reduce the need for post-publication corrections or amendments. Authors should meticulously input their information in the designated submission area, maintaining bibliographic consistency with their prior publications to guarantee accuracy in the published record.
Authorship changes
Any modifications to authorship (such as changes in order, addition, or removal of authors) following the initial submission necessitate unanimous approval from all authors. The sequence of authorship should be collectively determined and agreed upon by the authors. Furthermore, any adjustments to authorship must be communicated clearly to the editor. Aligned with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, the BSHJ mandates written confirmation from all authors endorsing proposed authorship changes for submissions or published items. This affirmation must be conveyed through individual email correspondence with each author. The corresponding author holds the responsibility of ensuring that all authors provide their consent for the suggested alterations. In instances where disagreements among authors arise regarding authorship and a satisfactory resolution cannot be achieved, the authors are advised to seek resolution from their respective institutions. The journal editor is not tasked with resolving disputes related to authorship. Changes in authorship for a published article can only be rectified by publishing an Erratum.
Trial registration
According to the guidelines provided by the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), a clinical trial is defined as a research endeavour that assigns individuals or a group of individuals to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups. The aim is to investigate the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. In alignment with the ICMJE's directives, the BSHJ will not consider submissions reporting on clinical trials unless these trials have been registered prospectively prior to the recruitment of participants. Furthermore, all trials must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry endorsed by the ICMJE. Such registries include primary registers of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, accessible at www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/index.html.The process of trial registration is a crucial step in ensuring transparency and accountability in clinical research. It helps maintain the integrity of the scientific process and enables researchers, clinicians, and the public to access accurate and comprehensive information about ongoing and completed clinical trials.
Data Sharing
The BSHJ actively encourages authors to share the data and any supplementary materials related to the methodology and findings presented in their submitted articles. This sharing can take place through suitable public repositories or by making these materials openly accessible as supplementary content accompanying the article. Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal are expected to include a data sharing statement. Following the guidelines of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), manuscripts that report on the results of clinical trials must include a data sharing statement that outlines whether and how the data from the trial will be made available. This emphasis on data sharing serves to enhance transparency and collaboration within the scientific community. It allows for the verification and replication of findings, fosters open dialogue, and contributes to the overall advancement of knowledge. For further details, authors are advised to refer to the ICMJE recommendations, available at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html#two.
Competing interests
A competing interest is a situation that has the potential to undermine or could be reasonably seen as undermining the fair and thorough representation, the peer review procedure, the editorial choices, or the publication of research or non-research articles submitted to the journal. A competing interest arises when a professional's judgement about a primary concern, such as patient well-being or research validity, could potentially be influenced by a secondary matter, like financial gain (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, paid expert testimony) or personal relationships. It's important to note that having a competing interest is not inherently unethical, but it should be acknowledged and transparently disclosed. All authors are required to declare any competing interests in both their cover letter and the designated "competing interests" section during submission. If an author has no competing interests, the statement should indicate: "The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests with regards to authorship and/or publication of this article." If necessary, the Editor might request additional information for clarification. Editors and reviewers are also obligated to disclose any competing interests they might have. If a competing interest is present, they will be excluded from participating in the peer review process. Additionally, it's a strict policy that none of the editors of the journal should maintain any financial affiliations with biomedical companies. The disclosure of all potential competing interests is mandatory and plays a crucial role in ensuring transparent research reporting. Failure to disclose competing interests can lead to the immediate rejection of a manuscript. In cases where an undisclosed competing interest is discovered after publication, BSHJ will take appropriate action in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and will issue a public notification to inform the community. This underscores the commitment to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and transparency in scholarly publishing. Competing interests encompass a range of factors that can be both financial and non-financial, originating from professional or personal spheres. These conflicts may emerge in connection with organizations or individuals.
Financial competing interests
Commercial organizations
Authors affiliated with pharmaceutical companies or other commercial entities that sponsor clinical trials should openly declare these affiliations as competing interests during the submission process. Furthermore, they are expected to follow the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies (GPP2). These guidelines are established to promote responsible and ethical publication practices. They also extend to any entities or individuals involved in producing industry-sponsored publications, including freelance writers, contract research organizations, and communications companies. It's essential to note that the BSHJ have a strict policy against publishing advertorial content, ensuring that all published material maintains the highest standards of integrity and transparency.
Unique identifiers
Distinctive IDs ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) stands as an open, not-for-profit initiative driven by the community, aimed at establishing a repository of distinct identification for researchers, along with a clear mechanism for associating research endeavors and results with these designations. The BSHJ strongly advocates the adoption of these exceptional identifiers by all authors. Furnishing the ORCID is obligatory for primary and corresponding authors. Furthermore, members of the journals' editorial boards must incorporate their exclusive designators, such as ORCID, into their profiles.
Referencing
Both research and non-research compositions (such as Opinion, Review, and Commentary pieces) should incorporate fitting and pertinent scholarly sources to substantiate the arguments presented. Excessive and unsuitable self-referencing, as well as concerted endeavors among multiple authors to collectively reference themselves, are strongly advised against. Authors are advised to adhere to the subsequent instructions while preparing their manuscripts:
• When incorporating external information into the manuscript—information that isn't the authors' own original concepts, findings, or general knowledge—a proper citation should be used.
• Authors should refrain from citing secondary sources or adaptations of original works. Instead, they should reference the primary source directly, rather than a review article that references the original work.
• Precise citations are imperative. They must genuinely substantiate the assertions within the manuscript, and authors should refrain from misrepresenting other works by citing them if they don't truly support the authors' intended point.
• Citations should only be drawn from sources the authors have actually read and engaged with.
• Authors must avoid showing favoritism towards citing their own, their acquaintances', peers', or institution's publications.
• Overreliance on citations from a single country should be avoided.
• An overabundance of citations to support a single point should be minimized.
• Whenever feasible, authors should opt for citing sources that have undergone peer review.
• Citations from advertisements or advertorial content should not be utilized.
Duplicate publication
Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal must ensure their work is original, with no substantial portions or the entirety of the manuscript being concurrently considered by any other journal. In instances where the potential for overlap or duplication exists, transparency is crucial. Authors are expected to disclose any potentially overlapping publications during submission and, if feasible, provide these as supplementary files along with the manuscript. Citations to any overlapping works must be included. Additionally, if relevant to the Editor's and reviewers' evaluation, any 'in press' or unpublished manuscripts should be accessible upon request. The BSHJ reserves the right to assess potential instances of overlap or redundancy on an individual basis. As a general guideline, the manuscript being submitted should not have previously undergone formal publication in any journal or any other citable medium. However, there are justifiable exceptions to this rule, provided they are clearly outlined during submission. Such exceptions may include publication in the format of a poster or conference presentation. The BSHJ employs CrossCheck's plagiarism detection technology and treat all instances of publication misconduct with utmost seriousness. Any potential occurrences of undisclosed duplicate manuscript submissions will be addressed according to the COPE guidelines, and the Editor might initiate communication with the authors' affiliated institution (please refer to the Misconduct policy for comprehensive details). It's noteworthy that the journal adheres to the ICMJE policies concerning overlapping publications.
Pre-Print Servers and Author/Institutional Repositories
Uploading a manuscript to a pre-print server like ArXiv, BioRxiv, Peer J PrePrints, or analogous platforms—both commercial and non-commercial—is not deemed as duplicative publication. Furthermore, content that has been included within an academic thesis and publicly disclosed, as mandated by the conferring institution, will also be taken into account by the BSHJ.
Summarized Clinical Trial Results in Public Registries
Presenting summarized outcomes of clinical trials in openly accessible databases is typically not regarded as redundant publication. The BSHJ mandates that authors submitting manuscripts detailing clinical trials must register their trial in a suitable, accessible registry (please consult our Trial Registration Policy for comprehensive details).
Text recycling
Authors need to recognize that reusing text from their own prior publications constitutes text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, which might be deemed unacceptable in certain instances. If text overlap with the authors' own prior works is essential or unavoidable, it must be disclosed transparently, accurately attributed, and in accordance with copyright regulations. When a submission includes text that has been previously published, authors are expected to inform the journal editors through the submission cover letter.
Peer Review Process
The BSHJ subjects all research articles, along with the majority of other article types, to a comprehensive peer review procedure. Typically, this entails evaluation by two separate peer reviewers. It's important to note that peer review practices may vary among individual journals. For specific information regarding the peer review policy of a particular journal, please refer to the respective journal's website.
Peer Review Evaluation
All submissions to the journal undergo an initial evaluation by an editor, who determines their suitability for peer review. In cases where an editor is associated with the authors or holds competing interests pertaining to a particular submission, an alternate member of the editorial board will be designated to oversee the peer review process. Manuscripts deemed appropriate for further consideration will be subjected to peer review by relevant, impartial experts. Editors will then make a decision based on the input from these reviewers, and authors will receive the reviewers' reports along with the editorial decision regarding their manuscript. It's important to acknowledge that even if one reviewer provides a favorable assessment, concerns highlighted by another reviewer could significantly impact the study's integrity and result in the manuscript being declined.
Closed Double-Blind Peer Review
The BSHJ employs a closed double-blind peer review system. This entails maintaining anonymity for both the authors and the reviewers involved in the evaluation process.
Application of Policies to Editorial Board Members
All Editorial Board Members of the journal are obligated to disclose any interests that could potentially impact or be perceived to impact their editorial responsibilities. Specifically, they should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in situations where there is a conflict of interest, whether financial or otherwise. Such conflicts might encompass scenarios like prior co-authorship with any of the manuscript's authors or sharing affiliation with any of the authors. It's important to note that Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit their own papers to the journal. However, these submissions will not be given preferential treatment over other manuscripts, and their Editorial Board Member status holds no influence over the editorial evaluation process. In instances where an Editorial Board Member serves as an author on a submission, they will have no involvement in the editorial assessment of the manuscript. They will also lack access to confidential details regarding the editorial proceedings and will not participate in the decision-making process for publishing the article.
Peer Review and Acceptance for In-House Submissions
For submissions authored by Editors or Editorial Board Members of the journal, a rigorous process is employed to ensure impartial peer review. These in-house submissions are directed to Editors who are not affiliated with the author or institution, ensuring the avoidance of peer review bias. Once a manuscript is received by the Editor-in-Chief, it may be further assigned to an Associate Editor, who will oversee the process. The Associate Editor will then send the manuscript to an appropriate number of reviewers, usually two, based on the manuscript type. Editorial Board Members might provide suggestions for potential reviewers. The comments and evaluations from these reviewers are carefully examined by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editors, who ultimately make the final decisions regarding acceptance. Authors are encouraged to address any reviewer comments in a rebuttal, which should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief using the provided email address on the journal's website. This comprehensive process ensures the thorough evaluation and unbiased acceptance of in-house submissions.
Editorial Selection and Responsibilities
The BSHJ invites accomplished scientists from diverse fields and global institutions to become Editors, based on their scientific accomplishments and publication record. The selection process involves the Scholarly Journal Council, which assesses applications and chooses candidates in line with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines, including considerations of potential competing interests. To ensure adherence to best practices as outlined by COPE, a regular audit process is in place. Editors play a crucial role in the evaluation of articles and the peer review process. They actively solicit peer reviewers and oversee the assessment of the reviewers' feedback. Ultimately, Editors hold the authoritative decision-making power regarding the publication of content within the journal. This rigorous and systematic approach ensures the maintenance of high standards and ethical practices in the editorial process.
Peer Reviewer Selection and Suggestions
Authors have the option to propose potential peer reviewers, although the decision to consider these suggestions ultimately rests with the editor. It's important to note that authors should refrain from recommending recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution. When suggesting peer reviewers, authors can include these recommendations in the cover letter and provide institutional email addresses whenever possible. Alternatively, providing information like an ORCID or Scopus ID can aid in the verification and identification of the suggested reviewer. In cases where authors wish to exclude specific individuals as potential peer reviewers, they should elucidate the reasons for their request within the cover letter during submission. However, it's advisable not to exclude an excessive number of individuals, as this might impede the peer review process. Editors may still choose to invite excluded peer reviewers, as per their discretion. It is of utmost importance to maintain integrity throughout this process. Deliberately providing false information, such as suggesting reviewers using inaccurate names or email addresses, can lead to manuscript rejection and potential further investigation in accordance with the misconduct policy in place.
Confidentiality Commitment
Editors are dedicated to upholding the confidentiality of all submissions to their journals, treating them as privileged documents. Reviewers are likewise obligated to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they assess. The Journal strictly refrains from sharing manuscripts with any external parties, except in cases where suspected misconduct necessitates such action. For more comprehensive details, please refer to our Misconduct Policy.
Addressing Misconduct
Tabriz University of Medical Sciences regards allegations of potential misconduct with utmost seriousness. Accordingly, the journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines when addressing instances of suspected misconduct. In situations involving suspected research or publication misconduct, it may become essential for the editor to communicate and share manuscripts with third parties, including the author(s)' institution(s) and ethics committee(s). Additionally, the BSHJ may seek guidance from COPE and engage in discussions within the COPE Forum, while ensuring the anonymity of the cases under consideration. These measures are undertaken to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct within the scholarly publishing realm.
Research Misconduct and Ethical Framework
Research involving humans (including human data and material) and animals must adhere to a suitable ethical framework, as detailed in our Ethics and Consent Policy. Should any suspicion arise that the research has not been conducted within the prescribed ethical parameters, the editor reserves the right to decline the manuscript and may choose to inform relevant third parties, such as the author(s)' institution(s) and ethics committee(s). This stringent approach reinforces our commitment to upholding ethical standards and safeguarding the integrity of research practices.
Addressing Research Misconduct
Should research misconduct be definitively established in relation to published articles, or if the scientific integrity of an article is substantially compromised, the option of retraction may be exercised. For additional details, please refer to our Corrections and Retractions Policy. This approach underscores our commitment to maintaining the credibility and reliability of the published scientific literature.
Publication Misconduct and COPE Guidelines
The BSHJ adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines when addressing instances of potential publication misconduct. This commitment underscores our dedication to upholding the highest ethical standards within the realm of scholarly publishing.
Guidelines for Image Manipulation
• All digital images included in manuscripts under consideration for publication will undergo meticulous examination to detect any manipulation that deviates from the provided guidelines. Manipulation inconsistent with these guidelines could lead to manuscript processing delays, rejection, or even retraction of a published article.
• No specific element within an image is permitted to be enhanced, obscured, shifted, deleted, or added.
• In cases where images are sourced from distinct portions of the same gel or from separate gels, fields, or exposures, this amalgamation must be clearly denoted through the figure's arrangement (e.g., using dividing lines) and expounded upon in the figure legend.
• Modifying brightness, contrast, or color balance is acceptable as long as these adjustments are applied uniformly to every pixel within the image and do not distort, eliminate, or misrepresent any original information, including background details. If non-linear adjustments (e.g., alterations to gamma settings) are employed, these changes must be disclosed in the figure legend.
Handling Peer Review Questions and Data Integrity
Any queries or concerns that arise during or subsequent to the peer review process will be directed to the editor. The editor will then solicit the original data from the author(s) for a side-by-side comparison with the figures presented. In the event that the original data cannot be produced, the submission might face rejection. In cases involving published articles, a retraction could be considered. Manipulation that impacts the data's interpretation will lead to either rejection or retraction, depending on the circumstances. Situations involving suspected misconduct will be communicated to the author(s)' institution(s) for appropriate action. This comprehensive approach emphasizes data integrity and upholds the integrity of the publication process.
Plagiarism Detection and COPE Guidelines
The BSHJ employs the iThenticate software, a plagiarism detection service that assesses the originality of submitted content prior to publication. In instances where plagiarism is detected, our response will be in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. This approach underscores our commitment to maintaining the integrity and originality of the published work.
Plagiarism Encompasses, Yet is Not Restricted to:
• Directly reproducing text from external sources • Replicating concepts, images, or data from other origins • Recycling text from one's own prior publications • Adopting an idea from another source with minor linguistic alterations
This list highlights several forms of plagiarism, although it is not exhaustive. The central premise is the misappropriation of another's work, whether through text, ideas, images, or data.
Plagiarism Response
In the event of plagiarism being identified during the peer review stage, the submission could face rejection. Should plagiarism come to light post-publication, we retain the prerogative to undertake corrective actions such as issuing a correction or retracting the paper, as deemed appropriate. We maintain the authority to communicate instances of detected plagiarism, whether occurring prior to or following publication, to the authors' respective institutions. Our commitment to upholding academic integrity remains unwavering.
Occasional Corrections and Retractions
The BSHJ acknowledges that on rare occasions, the need may arise to publish corrections or retractions for articles that have been published in its journals. These actions are undertaken to uphold the integrity of the academic record and ensure the accuracy of the scholarly literature.
Preserving Academic Integrity through Corrections and Retractions
Consistent with established academic standards, any necessary corrections or retractions of published articles will be executed by issuing an Erratum or Retraction article. The original content will remain unaltered, except for the addition of a conspicuous link directing to the Erratum or Retraction piece. The initial article will continue to be accessible to the public, and the subsequent Erratum or Retraction will be extensively indexed for reference. In rare instances where specific rights are infringed upon or defamatory content is identified, it might be essential to remove such material from our site and affiliated archives, maintaining our commitment to ethical and legal considerations. Our primary goal is to ensure the reliability and credibility of the academic discourse.
Minor Corrections and Author Comments
For minor corrections that do not impact the article's outcomes or conclusions, the original author(s) have the opportunity to make such adjustments by posting a comment on the published article. This mechanism allows for rectifications without altering the results or overarching conclusions of the piece. By adopting this approach, we maintain transparency and accuracy while ensuring that the scholarly discourse remains intact.
Rectifications and Changes to Published Articles
When modifications are necessary that impact the understanding and conclusions of a published article but do not render the entire article invalid, the editor(s) may opt to address this through the publication of an indexed Erratum. This Erratum will be connected to the original article, thereby ensuring a comprehensive record of the updates. Alterations in authorship for published articles are also addressed through the issuance of an Erratum. For additional details on authorship, please consult our Authorship Policy. This approach underscores our commitment to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of our published content.
Retracting Published Articles
In exceptional situations where the scientific validity of an article is significantly compromised, there might arise a need for article retractions. Such instances are rare and require meticulous consideration. The BSHJ adheres to the COPE guidelines when dealing with such cases.Retracted articles are appropriately addressed by following COPE guidelines, and these retractions are indexed and associated with the original article. This thorough approach ensures transparency and accountability within our scholarly publishing framework.
Advertising Exclusion
The BSHJ maintains a strict policy of not permitting advertisements. This approach underscores our dedication to upholding the integrity and scholarly nature of our publications.