Authorship should only be awarded to those who have had a substantial impact on the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the published study. All of the people who have made a substantial contribution should be listed as coauthors. If other people have made substantial contributions to the research project, their names should be listed in the Acknowledgments section.
It is the corresponding author's responsibility to ensure that no unsuitable co-authors are mentioned and that all appropriate co-authors (as previously stated) are included in the author list of the publication. The corresponding author should also ensure that every co-author has evaluated, approved, and given their agreement for the manuscript to be submitted for publication.
If authors request a change in the author list, whether adding or removing a name after a manuscript has been submitted or published, journal editors should require a detailed explanation along with a signed statement of agreement from every author currently listed, as well as from the individual being removed or added.
In academic and research settings, authorship attribution can be a contentious issue, leading to various types of appeals and complaints. These usually emerge when there's disagreement or dissatisfaction regarding decisions about author inclusion, exclusion, or the order in which authors are listed. Below are common types of appeals and complaints, along with typical processes for resolving them.
This situation arises when a contributor believes they should have been included as an author, or when a listed author contests the inclusion of another individual.
Conflicts may also emerge concerning the order in which authors are listed, frequently due to perceived discrepancies in the significance of contributions. In addition, it encompasses requests to add or remove authors after publication, typically due to errors, oversights, or ethical concerns.
Conflicts among co-authors can stem from disagreements about individual contributions, rights, or other matters related to authorship. Generally, such appeals and complaints are handled through a structured process that involves thorough review, consultations with key stakeholders, and strict adherence to institutional or journal guidelines governing authorship criteria. The ultimate aim is to maintain fairness, uphold integrity, and ensure compliance with ethical standards.
Depositing research data into public databases is essential for promoting transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in scientific research. To ensure that proper authorship criteria are upheld during the deposition process, certain guidelines and best practices should be followed. Below is an outline of important considerations for successful data deposition into public databases, while respecting the principles of authorship.
The AI-generated tools, such as ChatGPT, are not eligible for authorship. Authors are not allowed to use AI-generated content in any type of article. If the article has AI-generated content, it reflects the journal's integrity. The authors may use AI tools for gathering data or analysis of research work. You may include the AI-generated images, but you have to explain how it is useful and help, but the legends are not made by AI.
The journal's internal activities and decision-making procedures are usually protected by confidentiality of editorial procedures. This might involve the following things:
Peer Review Process: Information upon the assignation of publications to reviewers, reviewers' identities and the contents of their assessment are kept confidentially for the purpose to maintain the reliability of the peer evaluation process.
Editorial Discussions: Editors' discusses about recognizing, denying, or recommending modifications to a manuscripts are kept confidential for the purpose to make sure that decisions are made independently based on the document's contents.
Author correspondence: All correspondence between authors and the editorial team-including questions, appeals, and answers to reviewers' comments-is usually regarded as secret in order to protect the authors' privacy and the journal's professional relationship.
We accept only original work that has not been published anywhere. However, there are special considerations for manuscripts expanding upon meeting abstracts and those associated with preprints. In cases where there is overlapping or duplicated material, authors should submit copies of existing manuscripts as supplemental data files for the Editors to assess the originality and suitability for publication. Submission of duplicate content, already published elsewhere, will be treated as a violation of ethical standards and will lead to severe consequences.
Manuscripts that contain material previously presented as a digital poster in a conference or meeting with an online repository or videotaped will be evaluated for publication only if significant new information is incorporated.
Authors are allowed to publicly release manuscripts as preprints before or during submission, under certain conditions:
Preprints cannot be updated while the manuscript is under review or after it is accepted for publication.
The publication of the manuscript as a preprint and any public comments or coverage about it will be considered in evaluating its impact.
Authors must disclose the publication of related preprints in the cover letter for submission, and PDFs of those preprints must be included as supplemental files.
Principles for publication of medical research involving human subjects:
Studies involving human subjects must adhere to the rules of the appropriate institutional review board and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval and Helsinki compliance must be stated in the Methods section.
Published studies involving human subjects should not disclose identifying information unless essential for scientific purposes and with written informed consent from the patient or guardian.
The conflict of interest disclosure requires every author to disclose financial or other interests they have that could affect their role in the journal. It doesn't matter how much it is worth. They have to say if it could cause a real, possible, or seeming conflict with their work.
Authors are mandated to divulge any connections with companies or funding sources pertinent to their research, aiding in the detection of potential biases by readers and reviewers. Authors must exhibit the distinctiveness of their work in contrast to previously published literature. Plagiarism, the unauthorized reproduction of another person's work without acknowledgment, is strictly proscribed. Fundamentally, originality cultivates integrity within academic discourse and propels the advancement of knowledge through the introduction of novel concepts and discoveries, thereby fostering a culture of ingenuity and innovation within the research community.
Authors must make materials, datasets, and protocols available to other investigators without unreasonable restrictions. It is believed that authors should include essential data, algorithms, or information in their publications or make it easily accessible. Authors are encouraged to use public repositories for data and make patented material available for research use. Original research articles must include a data sharing statement explaining how readers can access the data.
This policy aims to ensure authenticity through reproducibility. Reagents such as nucleic acid sequences, clones, cell lines, monoclonal antibody clones, and small amounts of novel protein reagents should be provided. Proprietary or unique reagents are not exempt from this policy, and suitable material-transfer agreements can be arranged between the provider and requester. Noncompliance may result in refusal to publish articles from the corresponding author for three years.
Authors must provide the specific chemical structure of synthetic compounds in the manuscript or through a publicly available source. For natural products, if the chemical structure is known, it must be provided. If not known, adequate information on the source and composition must be provided to uniquely identify the compound.
Identify the appropriate public database(s) for your research.
When depositing data, ensure that all contributors who meet the authorship criteria are properly acknowledged.
Include comprehensive information regarding the origin, methodology, and context of the data. This detail helps create a clear connection between the data and the authors responsible for its generation and analysis.
Every public database may have distinct submission requirements, such as specific file formats, metadata standards, data structures, and quality control protocols. Make sure to comply with these requirements to guarantee a successful data deposition.
Public databases typically assign unique identifiers, such as Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), to deposited data. These identifiers facilitate citation and traceability. Make sure that these unique identifiers are accurately associated with the corresponding research publications and their respective authors.
Clinical trial reporting entails documenting the design, methodology, results, and analysis of clinical trials. This process is crucial for validating scientific findings and promoting reproducibility. Key elements to consider include.
Comprehensive information about the trial's objectives, study population, interventions, outcome measures, and statistical analysis methods. This also covers inclusion/exclusion criteria, the randomization process, blinding techniques, and data collection procedures.
A summary of the trial's outcomes, including statistical results, efficacy data, safety metrics, and reports of adverse events. The report should encompass both significant and non-significant findings to avoid publication bias.
An analysis of the trial results, including their implications for clinical practice, the study's limitations, and recommendations for future research.
Adhering to established guidelines like CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), which detail best practices for clinical trial reporting.
Providing documentation of ethical approvals, informed consent processes, and compliance with regulations such as the Declaration of Helsinki or Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines.
A clinical trial registry is a public database where researchers register clinical trials before they begin enrolling participants. This practice promotes transparency and facilitates independent scrutiny. Key components include:
Numerous regulatory bodies and journals mandate that clinical trials be registered in public registries (such as ClinicalTrials.gov or the EU Clinical Trials Register) before enrollment begins.
Registration generally requires information such as the trial title, purpose, intervention, eligibility criteria, locations, study design, and primary and secondary outcomes.
These trial registries are publicly accessible, allowing researchers, clinicians, and the public to view trial information, monitor its progress, and access results once the trial is completed.
Registries typically require trial sponsors to update trial information regularly, including any amendments to the protocol or changes in study status.
It is crucial that writers chorus from distorting research findings due to the fact doing so should harm the popularity of the journal, the requirements of clinical writing, and ultimately the clinical network as a whole. Ensuring the integrity of the research and its presentation can be notably less complicated with the aid of following the rules of desirable scientific exercise. Among these rules are:
It isn't really useful to put up the work to many publications for consideration on the identical time. Unless the brand new paintings is an extension of earlier work, the submitted paintings must be authentic and cannot had been posted some other place in any shape or language, either in part or absolutely. (Please be transparent approximately cloth reuse to allay issues approximately text recycling, or "self-plagiarism"). To maximize the range of submissions, a single observe should not be divided into a couple of sections and submitted to a couple of guides right away, or to one mag through the years (a practice known as "salami-slicing/publishing"). There are situations while simultaneous or secondary book is acceptable, given sure necessities are happy. Translations and writing meant for an target audience with awesome analyzing alternatives are two examples. Any content protected by using a copyright.
Authors have to be geared up to offer necessary facts or records upon request in order that the authenticity of the outcomes may be confirmed. This may want to take the shape of unprocessed information, samples, documents, and so forth. Confidential or proprietary facts that includes sensitive facts is not covered.
If harassing actions or states of fraud are suspected, the magazine and/or the publisher will release an investigation in accordance with COPE regulations. If any relevant issues are exposed during the overview, the authors can be given the opportunity to remedy them by using contacting them at the provided e-mail deal with. Depending on the state of affairs, the magazine and/or publishers may additionally take the following moves, including, but no longer limited to: If the manuscript remains being considered, it can be rejected and returned to its writer. If the object has already been posted on line, errors or edits can be made based at the gravity of the violation. The article may include an editor's remark or editorial difficulty. An editorial or staff concerns can be added to the article. In extreme cases, the case may be rejected. The clarification will be mentioned in the printed error/correction note, editorial letter, editorial expression of concern, or notice of withdrawal. Please keep in mind that a pullback means that the text is still on stage but with the word "pulled" next to it, and an explanation is provided in the lines associated with the article. The author’s organization should be notified. Information about alleged ethical violations in the peer review process should be included in the bibliography for the author and the paper.
