Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

FOCUS & SCOPE

  • We provide an International & Peer reviewed platform for doctors from all fields of Medical & Dental science to publish their General Reviews, Research Briefs, Systematic review updates, Meta-Analysis, Commentaries, Methodologies, Protocols, Book Reviews, Personal Viewpoints, Surveys & Letters

  • We intend to provide an opportunity to authors to publish unique, knowledge dispensing, high quality reviews

  • We are a CONTINUOUSLY UPDATED online journal and we publish articles instantly once accepted.

  • The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.

  • With the growing need for time bound publications we aim to considerably restrict the number of days taken to review your submissions and its subsequent publication.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Methodologies

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Briefs

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Protocol

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Survey

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Commentary

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

View Point

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript submitted to International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews if found to be suitable will be sent to atleast 3 reviewers for peer reviewing

"A DOUBLE BLINDED PEER REVIEW PROCESS IS STRICTLY FOLLOWED"

The reviewer comments shall be intimated to the corresponding authors email

The corresponding author should resubmit the manuscript with the corrections within 5 days

Each Manuscript shall be evaluated on the following basis:

1. The originality of its contribution

2. The soundness of its theory and methodology

3. The coherence of its analysis

4. Its ability to communicate to readers (Grammar & style)

 

Peer Review Policies adhered to by IJCDMR:

  • Publication of the list of reviewers at least once a year
  • Appointment of atleast two independent reviewers for each scientific article
  • Reviewers required declaring no conflict of interest
  • Reviews provided in a written form and containing explicit conclusion regarding acceptance/rejection of the article for publication
  • Non-disclosure of the names of reviewers in individual journal issues

Information for Authors

  • Generally, the receipt of a manuscript will be acknowledged within 2 days of submission.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by the Editorial board and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence.
  • Submissions will be considered by an editor and if not rejected by peer-reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors and vice versa.
  • The handling editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript or its review to anyone except the manuscript's corresponding author.
  • The corresponding author will usually be notified within 2 weeks of whether the submitted article is accepted for publication, rejected, or subject to revision before acceptance.
  • If revisions are required, authors are asked to return a revised manuscript to the Editorial Office via online within 1 week.

Information for Reviewer’s

  • In reviewing an article for International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews, we are interested in the overall opinion of the article and any comments you might wish to pass to the author to assist him/her in making the article publishable.
  • The editor would appreciate atleast one paragraph indicating why this paper makes a contribution to our knowledge. If it does not, your frank and candid opinion of why not would be most welcome

 

Peer Reviewers

We ask referees and peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they have agreed to peer review:

  • Unbiased consideration should be given to each manuscript, judging each on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.
  • Manuscripts should be dealt with and processed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
  • The quality of the manuscript, and its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations, and its exposition, will be judged objectively.
  • The peer-review process will be kept confidential.
  • Conflicts of interest must be declared.
  • Referees' judgments must be explained and supported. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation, and unsupported assertions must be avoided.
  • While the review of a manuscript may justify criticism, even severe criticism, under no circumstances is personal or malicious criticism of the author appropriate or acceptable.

Most important factors that must be considered by a reviewer are:

  • The article must match the area of expertise of the reviewer
  • It’s important to give a fair time to review an article so time is another constraint.
  • The manuscripts must not be shared with anyone by your own
  • Different people have different perceptions. Read an article and make sure that your review is in accordance to the article as well as need of the journal
  • You must hold your points with firm logical reasons
  • Your comments must be reasonable.

Communicating your report to the editor

  • The main parts of articles should be kept in mind while writing your report. It should not be very lengthy.
  • Specifying and matching the article with standard of journal is must.
  • The report has to be shared with the editor.
  • While making recommendations (either you reject or accept or give it for revising) keep in mind the general observation too.

Deadline for completion of peer-review

Timely review and timely publication always gives professional advantages and so it becomes important to meet the deadlines and send the report within the time period. The process of reviewing the article along with recommendations must be done within 14 days. Exceeding that will lead to delay in editor’s decision.

 

 

Publication Frequency

International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews is an International, Indexed, Peer reviewed, continuously updated online journal

Once the article is accepted and the proof reading is complete, the article will be published immediately.

All correspondence is to the email provided by the corresponding author

 

Open Access Policy

International Journal of Contemporary Dental and Medical Reviews is an open access publication which means that all published manuscripts are freely available for unlimited access.

Open access publishing provides immediate, worldwide free access to all published manuscripts. Readers can view, download, print, and redistribute any article without any financial barrier, enabling greater distribution of an article at IJCDMR

Once published, the article will be made free to read and reuse upon publication under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license 4.0

The publication costs of an article are paid from an author's research budget, or by their supporting institution. These Article Processing Charges replace subscription charges covers the costs of manuscript processing, online availability, hosting and archiving.

IJCDMR 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.

 

Archiving

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...

 

Brief Overview

International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews is a peer reviewed continuously updated, online journal which publishes General Reviews, Research Briefs, Systematic review updates, Meta-Analysis, Commentaries, Methodologies, Protocols, Book Reviews, Personal Viewpoints, Surveys & Letters encompassing all clinical specialities.

IJCDMR publishes high quality review manuscripts from all fields of Medicine & Dentistry including allied health sciences like Physiotherapy, Nursing & Pharmacy

 

 

Indexing & Abstracting

     INDEX COPERNICUS VALUE - 88.73



             

 

           

 

      

 

 

           

 

 

             

 

                          

 

 

 

 

                     

 

Anti-Plagiarism Policy and Scientific Misconduct

International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews (IJCDMR) strictly wishes to communicate to all its readers, contributors, authors and co-authors and other concerned not to indulge in any form of plagiarism. The Editorial Board and the Review Committee has decided to take a Serious View in the above matter and shall resort to appropriate action as and when required.

IJCDMR published by INSPUBLISHERS is a member of CrossCheck by CrossRef and iThenticate. iThenticate is a plagiarism screening service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. iThenticate checks submissions against millions of published research papers, and billions of web content. Authors, researchers and freelancers can also use iThenticate to screen their work before submission by visiting www.ithenticate.com


 

 

IJCDMR is committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will incur plagiarism sanctions.


Duplicate Submission & Redundant Publications – Manuscripts that are found to have been published elsewhere, or to be under review elsewhere, will incur duplicate submission/publication sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they are required to cite the previous work and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work. Redundant publications involve the inappropriate division of study outcomes into several articles.
Duplicate or redundant publication is a publication that overlaps substantially with one already published, in press, or in an electronic media submission. (International Committee of Medical Editors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html)


Submitted manuscripts should not have been published or currently submitted elsewhere. Duplicate publication is a violation of the APA code of ethics (APA Publication Manual, 2010) and will be grounds for prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript. If the editor was not aware of the violation and the article has been published, a notice of duplicate submission and the ethical violation will be published.

Citation Manipulation – Submitted manuscripts that are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, will incur citation manipulation sanctions.

Data Fabrication and Falsification – Submitted manuscripts that are found to have either fabricated or falsified experimental results, including the manipulation of images, will incur data fabrication and falsification sanctions.

Improper Author Contribution or Attribution – All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.

Sanctions – In the event that there are documented violations of any of the above mentioned policies in any journal, regardless of whether or not the violations occurred in a journal published by INS Publishers, the following sanctions will be applied:

  • Immediate rejection of the infringing manuscript
  • Immediate rejection of every other manuscript submitted to any journal published by INS Publishers by any of the authors of the infringing manuscript.
  • Prohibition against all of the authors for any new submissions to any journal published by INS Publishers, either individually or in combination with other authors of the infringing manuscript, as well as in combination with any other authors. This prohibition will be imposed for the entire lifetime.
  • Prohibition against all of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by INS Publishers
  • In cases where the violations of the above policies are found to be particularly egregious, the publisher reserves the right to impose additional sanctions beyond those described above. Plagiarized and fraudulent published data will lead to withdrawal and retraction of the article.

 

Handling of Alleged Misconduct

Institutions and journals both have important duties relating to research and publication misconduct. Institutions are responsible for the conduct of their researchers and for encouraging a healthy research environment. Journals are responsible for the conduct of their editors, for safeguarding the research record, and for ensuring the reliability of everything they publish. It is therefore important for institutions and journals to communicate and collaborate effectively on cases relating to research integrity. To achieve this, we make the following recommendations.

1. Reporting of Scientific Misconduct

If a reader believes that there could be an ethical problem with a published manuscript, the first step would be to contact the editors of the journal where it appeared. Editors must take all allegations of misconduct seriously and have the responsibility to look into the case. If there is evidence of serious misconduct, they may need to inform the employer(s) of the accused author(s) who will then start another (internal) investigation. In some cases, publication of a notice in the journal will be warranted (usually together with the retraction of the paper). The author(s) should always get the chance to respond to any allegations of misconduct.

Journal editors are often the first people to become aware of possible misconduct and therefore have a responsibility to respond appropriately. Journals also have a responsibility for everything they publish and should take appropriate remedial action if they discover they have published anything misleading or fraudulent. However, editors should not attempt to undertake formal investigations into research misconduct since they have neither the expertise, the legal standing, nor the resources to do so. Investigating misconduct should be the responsibility of the institution where the individual researcher was working at the time the alleged offences occurred. It is therefore important for journals and institutions to cooperate and exchange information over cases of possible misconduct. Until recently, little guidance was available on this topic, but in 2012, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) published guidelines to complement their other guidance for editors such as the COPE flowcharts (www.publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).


2. The role of the journal in contacting the publisher, author and author institutions

Despite the unpleasant situation, all correspondence with editors and/or author(s) should remain objective and kind. If there is no response from the journal or the authors—or if their answers are not convincing—the reader can still try to contact the author’s employer (or institution) directly to ask for an investigation/

Journal responses to misconduct affecting published material

As well as having systems for handling cases of suspected misconduct, journals require policies and processes for retracting or correcting false information that they have published. Many journals refer to the COPE guidelines on retractions, which also cover corrections and expressions of concern (http://publicationethics.org/files/retraction_guidelines.pdf). Because retractions may be used both in cases of honest error and of fraud, COPE recommends that retraction statements should include the reason for the retraction. This may require liaison with the institution if an investigation has taken place. Authors may object to retraction notices that mention misconduct and may argue for vaguer wording or even threaten legal action against the journal. Editors should take legal advice to avoid defamatory wording but should nevertheless strive to provide an informative statement. If the institution has issued a public statement following an investigation, this makes the journal editor’s task much easier, since the statement can be quoted and referenced without fear of reprisal. In some cases, not all of the authors will agree to a retraction and this information should generally be included in a retraction notice. If the authors refuse to cooperate, a retraction notice may be issued by the editor, and/or publisher, or by the institution.

Expressions of concern may be used if the author’s institution refuses to investigate the case, if the editor does not have confidence in the outcome of an investigation, or if an investigation is underway but will not report for some time. An expression of concern can alert readers to a potentially unreliable publication, but may later be converted into a retraction or correction, or itself be retracted, depending on the outcome of the investigation. Authors (and institutions) sometimes request that an expression of concern be issued rather than a retraction, perhaps mistakenly viewing this as a less severe sanction and hoping to avoid a retraction. Journals therefore need clear policies on when retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern are appropriate (the COPE guidelines may be helpful in determining this).

Editors need to be aware that authors may request a retraction (or correction) on the grounds of an innocent error when, in fact, the case is subject to a misconduct inquiry. Using this tactic, the authors hope to have their work retracted without mention of any misconduct. To avoid this, if authors request a retraction but the editor has any suspicion that misconduct may have occurred, the authors’ institution should be contacted to find out whether an investigation is underway. It is usually advisable to wait until an investigation has concluded before issuing a retraction, so that the retraction notice can refer to its findings, but an expression of concern may be used to alert readers to an ongoing investigation.

Journal responses to misconduct relating to unpublished submissions

Journal responsibilities in cases that have been properly investigated by an appropriate authority are, in some respects, clear cut. Journals have a responsibility to protect readers from unreliable or misleading work and should therefore endeavour to publish a retraction or correction as soon as the investigation has concluded and found that published work is unreliable. However, cases relating to unpublished work raise special concerns for journals, especially if the institution is unresponsive. In such cases, editors may feel responsible for trying to prevent authors from submitting the work to another, less vigilant, journal, but they generally have no means to do this. Especially if no investigation has taken place, it is not usually appropriate to share information about suspected misconduct with other editors. In response to this dilemma, COPE has issued a discussion document (but no formal guidance) on the topic.
http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Forum_discussion_summary_on_Sharing%20of%20information%20among%20editors_Final.pdf

Journal responses to institutions

The COPE guidelines on cooperation between journals and institutions emphasize the importance of journals responding appropriately when contacted by an institution. Such communication usually occurs at the conclusion of an investigation, to inform the journal of the outcome and of any affected publications. However, institutions may also contact journals to seek information. Sadly, journals do not always respond appropriately and, for example, sometimes fail to retract fraudulent or unethical work despite clear communications from institutions or other investigatory bodies.

Journal responses to ‘questionable practices’ and minor offences

Most editors would contact an institution only if they suspected the author had committed a relatively serious form of misconduct such as major plagiarism or data fabrication. However, journals also need policies for handling so-called ‘questionable practices’ and minor offences, which, while not considered full-blown misconduct, should nonetheless be discouraged. For example, if a junior author copied a single sentence from another article in their introduction, but this was detected before publication and the author was advised to paraphrase it or put it in quotation marks, most editors would consider it disproportionate to inform their institution. On the other hand, if an entire article was plagiarized, editors would expect to inform the institution. Therefore journals need to determine how much copying constitutes plagiarism of sufficient severity to warrant informing the institution. The answer may not be straightforward, as plagiarism depends not only on the number of words copied, but also on their context and originality. Similarly, defining redundant publication requires judgment, since there may be legitimate reasons for repeating parts of previous works, such as the methods section. However, while requiring editorial judgment and flexibility in their enforcement, journal policies are helpful to ensure consistency.

Editors also need to realize that their definitions of misconduct may differ from those of institutions. For example, submitting a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is outlawed by journals but may fall outside the definition of misconduct used by institutions and research integrity organizations. Similarly, including a senior figure who made little or no contribution to the work as a guest author would go against journal guidelines but may not be considered misconduct by an institution.

The COPE retraction guidelines state that the purpose of retractions is to correct the literature, not to punish authors. It can also be argued that journals have no legal standing to discipline authors, and that this should be left to their institution, employer, or funder. Yet editors sometimes seek to sanction authors, for instance by refusing to consider future submissions from them for a certain period. COPE does not endorse such sanctions, and such blacklisting could, in theory, make the journal (or publisher) vulnerable to legal action (such as suits for restriction of trade). Other actions by journals may be more appropriate and still have a deterrent effect. A letter from a journal editor expressing disappointment over the behaviour of an author or reviewer, but not requesting that the institution investigate the case, may be effective, especially if copied to the individual’s Head of Department or Dean. One editor (and former COPE Council member) described such correspondence as writing to authors 'more in sorrow than in anger.'
https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cooperation-between-research-institutions-and-journals-research-integrity3. COPE's Policies and Detailed Flowcharts

 

3. COPE's Policies and Detailed Flowcharts

https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts

 

Article Processing Charges

IJCDMR has no submission/processing/publication charges and is solely committed to the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

IJCDMR is an open access journal. Open access charges allow publishers to make the published material available for free to all interested online visitors.

 

 

Article Submission Charges

There are no article submission/processing/publication charges at IJCDMR. Authors are free to submit as many manuscripts as they desire

 

 

Waiver Policy

Not Applicable - There are no article submission charges or article reviewing charges at IJCDMR

 

 

 

Machine-readable CC licensing information

IJCDMR embeds machine-readable CC licensing information in its article metadata

All Published PDF's will carry this information: (PROVIDED BELOW IS A SAMPLE TEXT)

Copyright © 2016 Farhan Durrani, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Common Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms

 

Permissions/ Conflict of interest policy /Copyright

Incessant Nature Science (INS) Publishers journals group has a transparent publications policy and adheres in principle to the Conflict of Interest policy recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). INS Journals  does not discriminate on the basis of the source of material submitted, provided full disclosure is provided and appropriate declaration of interest statements and acknowledgments are included in published manuscripts. Thus, we require that authors/submitters include comprehensive ‘Declaration of Interest’ and ‘Acknowledgements’ sections in submitted articles. All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. It is the sole responsibility of authors to disclose any affiliation with any organization with a financial interest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript (such as consultancies, employment, paid expert testimony, honoraria, speakers bureaus, retainers, stock options or ownership, patents or patent applications or travel grants) that may affect the conduct or reporting of the work submitted. All sources of funding for research are to be explicitly stated. If uncertain as to what might be considered a potential conflict of interest, authors should err on the side of full disclosure.

More specifically, we request for the following:  

  • All relevant potential conflicts of interest for each named author and/or a statement of no-conflicts if there are none relevant to the contents of the article for any author(s).  

  • Disclosure of how the article is funded, and specifically, the disclosure of any and all pharmaceutical company funding (partial or total) OR a statement that there was no involvement of a pharmaceutical/other company (if this is the case).  

  • Comprehensive explanation of the role of the sponsors in article preparation (if the article is sponsored in part or whole).  

  • Disclosure of any medical writing/editorial assistance with the preparation of the article (the medical communication agency and the individuals involved need to be named).


INS Journals also strictly requires that all individuals who meet authorship criteria as per ICMJE requirements are included as authors on an article.  

Contributions from individuals who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged in the ‘Acknowledgments’ section. This should include details (with professional affiliations) of any other contributorship, such as data analysis, statistics, data collection, technical assistance, special thanks, personal assistance, and dedications.  

The ‘Declaration of Interest’ and ‘Acknowledgements’ sections will be made available to reviewers and will appear in the published article. Please note that the Editor(s) or Publisher can make or suggest changes to these statements where necessary. If any potential conflicts of interest are found to have been withheld following publication, the journal will proceed according to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance.  

The intent of this policy is not to prevent authors with any particular relationship or interest from publishing their work, but rather to adopt transparency such that reviewers, editors, the publisher, and most importantly, readers can make objective judgements concerning the work product. 

Once published, the article will be made free to read and reuse upon publication under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license 4.0

The published article can be distributed under the terms of the Creative Common Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms


COPYRIGHT

Articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license 4.0, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. As the author of your manuscript, you are responsible for obtaining permissions to use material owned by others. Since the permission-seeking process can be time-consuming, it is wise to request permission as soon as possible.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST

General

a. Authors

When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias or be seen to bias their work. The ICMJE has developed a Form for Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest to facilitate and standardize authors’ disclosures. ICMJE member journals require that authors use this form, and ICMJE encourages other journals to adopt it.

b. Peer Reviewers

Reviewers should be asked at the time they are asked to critique a manuscript if they have conflicts of interest that could complicate their review. Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.

c. Editors and Journal Staff

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests or other conflicts (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of journal staff. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.

Reporting Conflicts of Interest

Articles should be published with statements or supporting documents, such as the ICMJE conflict of interest form, declaring:

  • Authors’ conflicts of interest; and
  • Sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; the decision to submit the report for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement; and
  • Whether the authors had access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is on-going.

To support the above statements, editors may request that authors of a study sponsored by a funder with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”

Declaration of competing interests

A competing interest—often called a conflict of interest—exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in International Dental and Medical Journal of Advanced Research when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others.

We believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have, and that if we publish the article readers should know about them too. We are not aiming to eradicate such interests; they are almost inevitable. We will not reject your article simply because you have a conflict of interest, but we want you to make a declaration on whether or not you have competing interests. (We also ask our staff and reviewers to declare any competing interests.)

A declaration of interests for all authors must be received before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication. It should take one of two forms, depending on what type of article you are submitting

 

Ethics and Malpractice Statement

IJCMDR is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements

This section is designed to help everyone engaged in the journal publication process; namely, editors, authors, and manuscript reviewers and referees.  

We are confident that unambiguous and consistent guidelines will enhance the quality of published research, and ensure a process is in place to respond to a situation where ethics may have been transgressed.  

 

Editors 

We ask editors to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they deem worthy of consideration by peer review.

  1. Unbiased consideration should be given to each manuscript, judging each on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.
  2. Manuscripts should be dealt with and processed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
  3. Editors have sole responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. While an editor may seek guidance via peer review, she or he may reject a manuscript without review if considered inappropriate for the journal.
  4. The peer-review process must be confidential and rendered anonymous.
  5. Conflicts of interest must be declared.
  6. If an editor receives a challenge to the authenticity of a published article, she or he will consult with INS Journals, and where appropriate members of the editorial board, in confidence. Where the editor and INS Journals subsequently secure evidence that authenticity has been compromised, in any of the following ways – the main substance of a published article is erroneous; the article contains material which has not been properly acknowledged or cited; the article's authorship is incorrect or incomplete; or the article contains a libel – the editor and INS Journals will facilitate publication of an appropriate correction, a Statement of Retraction, or, in extremis, the withdrawal and removal of the article.


Editors' Responsibilities

Publication Decisions

  • The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published.
  • The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

Confidentiality

  • The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.


Authors  

  1. Authors must present an accurate account of the research performed, and offer an objective discussion of its significance.
  2. The article must contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit the author's peers to repeat the work.
  3. Authors must cite all relevant references.
  4. Authors must identify any hazards inherent in conducting the research.
  5. Authors must declare conflicts of interest.
  6. Authors must avoid fragmenting research to maximize the number of articles submitted.
  7. Authors must not submit the same or similar articles to any other journal or publication medium.
  8. While an experimental or theoretical study may sometimes justify criticism of the work of another scientist, in no circumstances is personal criticism appropriate.
  9. "Co-authors" are defined as any person who has made a significant scientific contribution to the work reported, and who shares responsibility and accountability for the results.  

    We require that, prior to publication; authors sign a set of warranties to these effects via a Copyright Transfer Form. If appropriate, authors should also ensure that patient consent is sort and granted.

 

Authors' Responsibilities

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Authorship Criteria

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

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

Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript. The author list of any submission should be decided upon and fixed BEFORE submission. Once submitted the order cannot be changed without written consent of all the contributors. Please also note that electronic signatures or copied and pasted signatures are not acceptable.

Referees and Peer Reviewers 

We ask referees and peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to ensure the following criteria are taken into account for those submitted manuscripts they have agreed to peer review:

  1. Unbiased consideration should be given to each manuscript, judging each on its merits without regard to the race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author.
  2. Manuscripts should be dealt with and processed with reasonable speed and efficiency.
  3. The quality of the manuscript, and its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations, and its exposition, will be judged objectively.
  4. The peer-review process will be kept confidential.
  5. Conflicts of interest must be declared.
  6. Referees' judgments must be explained and supported. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported must be accompanied by the relevant citation, and unsupported assertions must be avoided.
  7. While the review of a manuscript may justify criticism, even severe criticism, under no circumstances is personal or malicious criticism of the author appropriate or acceptable.

 

Peer Reviewers' Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source.
Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Checking for plagiarism, duplicate publication and text recycling

The Editorial Office will be running all revised manuscripts through an online plagiarism-prevention program. Following the lead of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), whose policies are in turn supported by the ICMJE, if plagiarism is discovered, the author will be notified before any further action is taken.


Post-publication correction policy

The moment an article is published (even if only online) it enters the scientific literature as the "version of scholarly record" and becomes a fixed-state document available for citation by other journal articles. In consequence, INS Journals does not allow amendments to articles after publication, other than by means of publishing an erratum or corrigendum.

If journal articles were to become subject to continued revision after initial publication they would no longer play the role of "the minutes of science", which capture the authors’ conclusions at a specific point of time. 

There are some exceptions to this rule; particularly cases where we may consider it permissible to correct errors in an Early Online/Online First (ahead of print) article prior to its publication in a print issue. Examples include: 

  1. Spelling errors in the article metadata may be corrected, for example author names, article title or keywords.
  2. Updates to the corresponding author's contact information if it has changed since submission (although the affiliation line should still reflect the author’s institution at the point of submission).
  3. Poor resolution or black & white figures may be replaced by high resolution or colour versions of the same graphic.
  4. "In press" references can be updated with the final citation information.

Significant changes to Early Online articles will normally be accompanied by a Notice of Correction at the end of the reference section detailing post-publication amendments.

Once an article appears in an issue, the option for further amendments is closed off entirely and details such as the corresponding author’s contact information or "in press" reference citations are locked down permanently. 

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011).

Reporting Standards

Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality, Plagiarism and Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published material. In case of publication they permit the use of their work under a CC-BY license [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/], which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit the work as well as to adapt the work and to make commercial use of it.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7).
Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf

 

Ethics

When reporting studies on human beings, indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (available at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/). For prospective studies involving human participants, authors are expected to mention about approval of (regional/ national/ institutional or independent Ethics Committee or Review Board, obtaining informed consent from adult research participants and obtaining assent for children aged over 7 years participating in the trial. The age beyond which assent would be required could vary as per regional and/ or national guidelines. Ensure confidentiality of subjects by desisting from mentioning participants’ names, initials or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material. When reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether the institutions or a national research council’s guide for, or any national law on the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

Evidence for approval by a local Ethics Committee (for both human as well as animal studies) must be supplied by the authors on demand. Animal experimental procedures should be as humane as possible and the details of anesthetics and analgesics used should be clearly stated. The ethical standards of experiments must be in accordance with the guidelines provided by the CPCSEA http://cpcsea.nic.in/Auth/index.aspx and World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving experimental animals, respectively or International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare available at http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors/

The journal will not consider any paper which is ethically unacceptable. A statement on ethics committee permission and ethical practices must be included in all research articles under the ‘Materials and Methods’ section.

Misconduct

We will energetically pursue accusations of misconduct directed at authors, Editors or referees and have a number of sanctions at our disposal including the option to inform employers about accusations and ask them to mount their own internal investigations. Accusations should not be made lightly or in the absence of the likelihood of supporting evidence being obtainable. The Journal may take the view that accusations are malicious if supporting evidence cannot be found and may direct sanctions against accusers in such cases. Any accusation of misconduct should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief (unless it involves the Editor-in-Chief, in which case it should be directed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board).

Archiving

The journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content is currently at LOCKSS

 

Advertising Policy

Journal Advertising Policies

The Journal will consider advertising and sponsorship opportunities, as a means to provide value to our readers. It is important to us that this is carried out in a responsible way, and therefore Future Science Group journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in this regard.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/advertising.html

The following policies apply to both the print and electronic versions of journal publications produced by Inspublishers Pvt Ltd

  • All advertising must be an accurate description of the product or service, legal, decent, truthful, honest and socially responsible (not encouraging illegal, unsafe or anti-social behaviour).

  • Advertisements must comply with the relevant laws, regulations and industry codes for the geographic area in which they appear (including those related to the advertisement of medicines).

  • Advertising has no influence over editorial decisions, with advertising and editorial being managed by two separate departments.

  • A journal’s editorial team has full and final authority for approving print and online advertisements and for enforcing advertising policy.

  • A journal’s editorial team will consider all criticisms of advertisements for publication, in the same way as any other journal content.

  • Advertisements will not be juxtaposed with editorial content on the same product.

  • Advertisements/sponsored content will always be clearly identifiable as such.

  • Advertisements will not be carried for products proven to be seriously harmful to health.

    a) All advertising (or sponsorship or funding) must first be approved by the publisher. Inspublishers Pvt Ltd may refuse to accept sponsorship from any commercial enterprise, company or industry and will not be bound to offer any justification for its decision to do so.

    b) All advertising (or sponsorship or funding) is handled separately from editorial content. Sponsors don’t have control over the editorial decision.

    Sales and Editorial Working Agreement

    a)Editorial and advertising sales administration are completely separate operations.

    b) Editorial decisions are never influenced by potential advertising or reprint revenues.

    Reprints/Hard Copies

    We offer a print service for those requiring professional quality reproductions of articles. Reprints are produced from the final PDF of the article; if you are interested in reprints of an article, please email us at editor.ijcdmr@gmail.com

    Upto 500 copies of any article with a final PDF can be ordered which will be provided with a cover page. This simple to use service enables users to have reprints delivered to their door. The cost of printing will be notified prior to the author.

    For Advertisements please contact: inspublishers@gmail.com

    Advertisement material along with payment should reach us at least two weeks prior to the scheduled online release date. Payment has to be done at the time of submitting the advertisement material/booking the advertisement. Please send your advertisement request, payment details and advertisement material (in digital file format – 300dpi resolution) to the email address given above.

    Subscriptions

    IJCDMR is an open access journal. The published material is available for free to all interested online visitors.

    Institutional support

    NIL

    Organizational support

    NIL

    We accept offers for online advertisement

    Contact: editor.ijcdmr@gmail.com

 

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, International Journal of Contemporary Dental & Medical Reviews (IJCDMR) is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.

IJCDMR content that will have the CrossMark logo is restricted to current and future journal content and is limited to specific publication types.

 

Correction and Retraction Policies

IJCDMR is committed to uphold the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata, Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. In all cases, these notices are linked to the original article.

x
Message