Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the position statements developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Allegations of Misconduct
This journal follows COPE Core Practices Guideline for allegations of misconducts.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/misconduct
Authorship and Contributorship
According to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, released by the ICMJE, an “Author” is generally considered to be someone who simultaneously meets the following conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4.
1-Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
2-Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
3-Final approval of the version to be published; AND
4-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.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/authorship
Complaints and Appeals
This journal follows COPE Guidelinesfor handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or publisher.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/appeals
All patients and participants in a research project should be thoroughly informed about the aims of the study and any possible side effects of the drugs and interventions. Written informed consent from the participants or their legal guardians is necessary for any such studies. The Journal reserves the right to request the related documents. Articles that require informed consent should contain related statements in the “Methods” section.
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interest
We request all authors and reviewers to inform us about any kinds of “Conflict of Interest” (such as financial, personal, political, or academic) that would potentially affect their judgment. Authors are preferably asked to fill the uniform disclosure form available through:
Find out more: publicationethics.org/competinginterests
Data and Reproducibility
This journal havepolicies on data availability and encourage the use of reporting guidelines and registration of clinical trials and other study designs according to standard practice in their discipline.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/data
JBPE is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE’s flowcharts and guidelines are approached in confronting any ethical misbehavior. The Journal also follows the guidelines mentioned in the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Find out more: publicationethics.org/oversight
Human and Animal Rights:
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an independent local, regional or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board).
When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.
All policies on intellectual property, including copyright and publishing licenses, should be clearly described. In addition, any costs associated with publishing should be obvious to authors and readers. Policies should be clear on what counts as prepublication that will preclude consideration. What constitutes plagiarism and redundant/overlapping publication should be specified.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/intellectualproperty
This journal has policies on journal management.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/management
Peer Review Processes
Submitted articles are primarily evaluated by our section editor who checks the articles for any methodological flaws, format, and their compliance with the Journal’s instructions. Following this step, a submission code will be allocated and all the future contacts should be based on this code. Through a single-blind review, the articles will be reviewed by minimum of two external (peer) reviewers. Their comments will be passed to the authors and their responses to the comments along with the reviewers’ comments will then be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and a final reviewer who can be a member of the Editorial Board. The final review process will be discussed in regular editorial board sessions and on the basis of the comments, and the Journal’s standards, the Editors-in-Chief will decide which articles should be published.
It should be noted that articles submitted by the staff and editors of the JBPE will also be subjected to peer review and the authors will be completely blind to the evaluation process of their article until a final decision will be made.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/peerreview
Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections
The Journal will publish an erratum when a factual error in a published item has been documented.
Find out more: publicationethics.org/postpublication
Duties of Editors:
The Management Team of JBPE, consisting of the Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor and the Head of the Editorial Office is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Management Team may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Management Team may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors 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. JBPE operates a web-based submission system, which is run in a way that prevents unauthorised access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, JBPE may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). JBPE does not disclose reviewers’ identities. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, this is permitted.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error). Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, JBPE Management Team will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, JBPE will take this to the institutional level. In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, JBPE may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded JBPE will publish comment that explains the findings of the investigation. JBPE may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it. JBPE will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal. In other cases, JBPE may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory). Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Disclosure and 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 connected to the papers.
JBPE Editors will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, will be taken to the institutional level.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Hazards If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Reporting of research involving humans or animals Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms). Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the prespecified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary or post hoc analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding. Authors should supply research protocols to journal editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering
ISSN / e-ISSN: 2251-7200
Publisher: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences