Publication Ethics & Editorial Policy

Publication Ethics & Editorial Policy

Editorial Policy and Process

The JBUMDC strictly follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

JBUMDC is included in the list of journal following ICMJE recommendations.

Submission of a manuscript to the JBUMDC implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.

Open Access Policy

The JBUMDC is an open-access journal. All the articles and material published in the Journal of Bahria University Medical and Dental College will be freely available for everyone at the journal’s website. The full text of all the articles can be freely accessed and downloaded by the readers of the journal. There is no need to pay any subscription or pay-per-view charges to read articles published by JBUMDC. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.

Copyright statement

Authors who publish in Journal of Bahria University Medical and Dental College, (JBUMDC) retain copyright to their work. Submission of a manuscript to the journal implies that all authors have read and agreed to the content of the undertaking form or the Terms and Conditions. It is a condition of publication that manuscripts submitted to a journal have not been published and will not be simultaneously submitted or published elsewhere.

Articles published in the Journal of Bahria University Medical and Dental College are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium; provided the original work is properly cited. 

Repository Policy

As Journal of Bahria University Medical and Dental College is an Open Access journal authors are entitled to make their article publicly available according to the terms of the CC BY license:

Authors who have published under a  CC BY-NC 4.0 license may share and distribute their article on non-original place of publication and correct citation details should be given. Authors should also deposit the URL/DOI of their published article in any repository, in addition to the Version of Record.

When making their article available according to the terms of their Open Access license, we strongly encourage authors to deposit the Version of Record. This will guarantee that the definitive version is readily available to those accessing your article from such repositories and means that your article is more likely to be cited correctly.

Bahria University has its own Repository (Bahria University D-Space Repository).

 

Authorship and Contribution Policy

Authorship Criteria

JBUMDC follows the four authorship criteria outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):

  1. Substantial contribution to conception or design of the work, or to data collection and interpretation.
  2. Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.
  3. Final approval of the version to be published.
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring accuracy and integrity in all parts of the manuscript.

Only those meeting all four criteria should be listed as authors. Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged appropriately in the Acknowledgment section.

Author Roles

  • First Author: Leads the research concept, data analysis, and manuscript writing.
  • Corresponding Author: Responsible for all correspondence during submission, review, and post-publication; ensures ethical and administrative compliance.
  • Co-Authors: Support research execution, data interpretation, or critical revision of the manuscript.

Contribution Declaration

Each author must submit a CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement describing their specific roles, such as Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Supervision, and Funding Acquisition.

Authorship Changes

Requests for addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission must be accompanied by written consent from all listed authors and approval from the Editor-in-Chief.

AI and Authorship

Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools cannot qualify for authorship. Any AI assistance (e.g., in language editing, figure formatting, or grammar checking) must be disclosed transparently in the Acknowledgment or Methods section. Failure to disclose AI use may result in rejection or retraction.

Deceased Authors

Deceased authors may be included with a dagger symbol (†) next to their name, accompanied by a footnote noting their passing and date of death.

Peer Review Policy

JBUMDC is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary biomedical journal. The journal uses a structured double-blind peer-review process to support fair, independent, confidential and timely assessment of manuscripts. This policy consolidates and strengthens the peer-review procedures already stated in the journal's existing Publication Ethics & Editorial Policy and Author & Submission Guidelines.

  • JBUMDC uses a double-blind peer-review system. Reasonable measures are taken to conceal author identities from reviewers and reviewer identities from authors throughout the review process.
  • At least two independent subject experts are normally invited to review each manuscript. Additional reviewers may be appointed when specialist, methodological or statistical expertise is required.
  • Reviewers are independent of the journal's editorial staff for the assessment of individual manuscripts. Editorial staff may conduct administrative and quality checks but do not replace independent subject expertise.
  • Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated handling editor.

Initial Editorial Screening

  • Each submission is acknowledged and assigned a reference/manuscript number for correspondence and tracking.
  • The editorial office conducts an initial assessment of scope, article type, basic formatting, completeness of submission files, ethical requirements and potential publication-misconduct concerns.
  • Similarity screening and other integrity checks are conducted before peer review in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism & Misconduct Policy.
  • Manuscripts may be returned to authors for technical correction or may be declined without external review when they fall outside the journal scope, fail essential submission requirements, or raise unresolved ethical or integrity concerns.
  • Where appropriate, manuscripts are referred for statistical or methodological assessment before or alongside external peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Eligibility

Reviewers are selected on the basis of subject expertise, methodological competence, relevant publication or professional experience, availability and the absence of conflicts of interest.

  • Reviewers should have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript and should be able to provide an objective, constructive and timely assessment.
  • Reviewers should not be selected solely because of personal recommendation, institutional proximity or prior familiarity with the authors.
  • The journal will, where practicable, avoid appointing reviewers from the same department or institution as any of the authors or reviewers with close personal, professional or academic relationships that could affect impartiality.
  • Author-suggested reviewers, where permitted, remain subject to the same independence and conflict-of-interest checks as any other reviewer.

Conflict of Interest and Editorial Recusal

All participants in the review and publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors and editorial board members, are expected to disclose relationships or activities that could create an actual or perceived conflict of interest.

  • Reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts before accepting an assignment and must decline the assignment when a conflict could compromise impartiality.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts involving a personal, professional, financial, institutional, supervisory, collaborative or other conflict of interest.
  • An Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Managing Editor or Editorial Board member must not participate in the editorial assessment or decision-making of their own manuscript, or of a manuscript with which they have a material conflict.
  • Editorial decisions will be based on scholarly merit, relevance, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance and contribution to the journal's readership, and not on institutional affiliation, nationality, personal relationships or commercial considerations.

Reviewer Invitation and Assignment

  • Potential reviewers are invited through the journal's editorial system or by the editorial office and are provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision about accepting the assignment.
  • Reviewers are asked to disclose conflicts, no use of AI, confirm confidentiality, and provide the review within the requested timeframe.
  • A reviewer who cannot complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe should inform the editorial office promptly so that the assignment can be reassigned when necessary.
  • If a reviewer does not respond after reminders, the manuscript may be referred to a replacement reviewer to avoid unnecessary delay.

Review Timeline and Reviewer Reminders

  • The target duration for the peer-review stage is normally approximately 4–6 weeks, subject to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity and the need for additional assessment.
  • The overall time from submission to final decision may extend to approximately 1–4 months where revisions, additional reviews, statistical assessment or reviewer replacement are required.
  • Reviewer reminders may be issued during the review period. Where a reviewer remains unresponsive after appropriate reminders, the journal may appoint a replacement reviewer.
  • The journal aims to process manuscripts as promptly as practicable and keeps authors informed of significant delays when possible.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Maintain strict confidentiality of the manuscript, data, figures, supplementary material and review discussions.
  • Provide an objective, evidence-based, constructive and respectful assessment.
  • Assess the manuscript for originality, scientific quality, methodological appropriateness, clarity, ethical compliance, appropriate reporting and relevance to the journal.
  • Identify major and minor concerns clearly and distinguish issues that are essential for publication from those that are advisory.
  • Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, ethical concerns or other potential misconduct.
  • Do not use unpublished information, ideas or data obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.
  • Do not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless the journal specifically authorizes such contact.
  • If a reviewer uses assistance from a trainee or colleague, the reviewer must obtain permission from the journal where required and ensure that confidentiality is maintained and appropriate contribution is acknowledged.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Because peer-reviewed manuscripts are confidential, reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential manuscript content to generative-AI or other external tools unless the journal has expressly permitted such use and confidentiality can be assured. Any permitted use must not compromise confidentiality or replace the reviewer's professional judgment.

Review Criteria and Review Reports

Reviewers may be asked to comment on the following, as applicable:

  • Originality and importance of the work
  • Scientific validity and methodological rigor
  • Clarity of objectives, methods and reporting
  • Appropriateness of statistical analysis
  • Ethical approval, informed consent and trial registration where applicable
  • Presentation of results and consistency between results and conclusions
  • References and appropriate citation
  • Tables, figures and supplementary material
  • Overall suitability for the readership of JBUMDC

Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation such as accept, minor revision, major revision or reject, together with sufficient comments to support the recommendation. The editorial decision is not determined solely by a numerical vote among reviewers.

Statistical and Methodological Review

Where a manuscript contains substantial statistical analysis, complex study design, clinical trial methodology, epidemiological analysis or other specialist methods, the journal may seek additional statistical or methodological review. Such review may be conducted before or after external subject review and may result in requests for clarification, re-analysis or revision.

Editorial Decision-Making

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' reports and other relevant assessments. Decisions may include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject
  • A decision may differ from a reviewer recommendation when justified by the manuscript, the balance of evidence in the reports, journal scope, ethical considerations or editorial judgment.
  • Where reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may seek an additional independent review or further expert assessment.
  • Editors should document the basis of substantive editorial decisions and maintain confidentiality of reviewer identities and comments as appropriate.

Revision and Re-review

  • Authors receiving a revision request should submit a revised manuscript within the period specified by the journal, normally within two weeks unless additional time is approved.
  • A point-by-point response to reviewers should accompany the revised manuscript and clearly indicate how each comment was addressed or, where not addressed, provide a reasoned explanation.
  • A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers, to new reviewers, or assessed editorially depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.
  • Where authors do not respond after reminders and without an agreed extension, the manuscript may be treated as withdrawn or declined in accordance with journal procedure.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision within 30 days of the decision by submitting a written, reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should identify a specific factual or procedural error, a misunderstanding of the manuscript, evidence of reviewer bias or another substantive issue that could reasonably have affected the decision.

  • An appeal is not a mechanism simply to request reconsideration because the authors disagree with the reviewers.
  • The editor may seek advice from an independent editor or reviewer who was not involved in the original decision.
  • The outcome of the appeal will be communicated after appropriate review. The appeal decision may be final, subject to applicable institutional or regulatory procedures.

Complaints and Ethical Concerns

Complaints relating to the peer-review process, reviewer conduct, editorial conflicts, confidentiality or publication ethics are handled through the journal's Conflict Resolution and Publication Ethics procedures. Matters may be investigated by the Editor-in-Chief and/or designated ethics committee in accordance with applicable COPE guidance.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

  • Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and related records are treated as confidential editorial material.
  • Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the double-blind model except where disclosure is required by the journal's policy or applicable law.
  • Authors and reviewers should not disclose confidential information obtained through the review process.
  • The journal maintains editorial records in its manuscript-management and/or institutional systems and protects access to those records in accordance with applicable institutional requirements.

Reviewer Recognition and Certificates

JBUMDC may recognize high-quality and timely reviewers through certificates, acknowledgement on the journal website or participation in an approved reviewer-recognition platform. Recognition will not disclose confidential manuscript information or compromise the anonymity of the review process.

Quality Assurance and Monitoring of Peer Review

  • The Editorial Board periodically reviews reviewer selection, response rates, review timeliness, quality of reviewer reports, editorial timelines and adherence to conflict-of-interest and confidentiality procedures.
  • The journal may maintain records of reviewer invitations, acceptances/declines, reminders, review reports and editorial decisions for quality assurance and audit purposes.
  • Recurring concerns identified through audit or reviewer feedback will be used to improve the peer-review system, reviewer guidance and editorial procedures.
  • The peer-review policy will be reviewed at least annually and updated when applicable HEC requirements or recognised international standards change.

Editorial Independence

JBUMDC supports editorial independence. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific validity, originality, relevance and quality of the manuscript and are not influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional status or pressure from authors, reviewers, owners or sponsors. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the journal's editorial content, subject to the governing framework of the journal and its owner.

Transparency and International Standards

JBUMDC aligns this policy with recognised international standards and recommendations for ethical and transparent scholarly publishing. The following resources should be kept as active hyperlinks on the journal website:

Current JBUMDC Workflow (Operational Summary)

Stage

Main Action

Responsible Role

1. Submission & Acknowledgement

Manuscript received, assigned reference number, completeness check

Editorial Office

2. Initial Screening

Scope, format, ethics, similarity and integrity checks

Editorial Office / Managing or Associate Editor

3. Statistical/Methodological Check

Where required by study design or analysis

Statistician / Subject Expert

4. Reviewer Selection

At least two independent subject experts; conflict check

Handling Editor / Editorial Office

5. Double-Blind Review

Independent review and recommendations

External Reviewers

6. Editorial Assessment

Review reports evaluated; decision recorded

Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor

7. Revision & Re-review

Author response and revised manuscript assessed

Authors / Reviewers / Editor

8. Final Decision

Accept, minor revision, major revision or reject

Editor-in-Chief / Handling Editor

9. Production & Publication

Proofing, final checks and publication

Editorial & Production Team

 

A conflict of interest exists when a participant in the publication process has a financial, professional, academic, personal, institutional or other competing interest that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived to influence, their judgment or responsibilities. A conflict may be actual, potential or perceived.

  • Financial relationships, funding, consultancy, employment, honoraria or other financial interests.
  • Personal, family or close professional relationships with authors or reviewers.
  • Academic competition, recent collaboration, supervision, mentorship or strong professional rivalry.
  • Institutional affiliation with an author or the institution responsible for the submitted work.
  • Leadership or administrative responsibilities within the authors' institution or the journal's parent institution.
  • Any other relationship or commitment that may compromise, or appear to compromise, editorial independence.

Core Principles

  • Editorial decisions shall be based on the scientific quality, validity, originality, relevance and ethical integrity of the work.
  • Disclosure of a conflict does not automatically imply wrongdoing; the journal will manage the conflict through appropriate safeguards.
  • Individuals with a relevant conflict shall not participate in peer review or editorial decisions concerning the affected manuscript.
  • The journal shall use independent decision-makers and reviewers when institutional or personal relationships create a credible risk of bias.
  • Confidential information obtained during editorial work shall not be used for personal, academic or institutional advantage.

Responsibilities of Authors

  • Authors must disclose all relevant financial and non-financial relationships and activities that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the work.
  • Authors must disclose relevant institutional, supervisory, collaborative or personal relationships where these may affect editorial assessment.
  • Authors may identify persons who should not review the manuscript because of a legitimate conflict; the journal will consider such requests while retaining responsibility for reviewer selection.
  • Authors must not attempt to influence the selection of reviewers or editorial decisions through personal, institutional or professional pressure.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

  • Reviewers must declare whether they have any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest before accepting the review.
  • Reviewers must decline the assignment when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, objectivity.
  • Reviewers should not be selected when they are from the same department or institution as an author, where this creates a meaningful risk of bias.
  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not use unpublished information for personal, academic or institutional benefit.
  • Any conflict identified after accepting a review must be reported immediately to the handling editor, who will determine whether reassignment is required.

Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Board Members

  • Editors and Editorial Board members involved in editorial decisions must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships and activities.
  • An editor must recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they are an author, co-author, contributor, collaborator, supervisor, close colleague or otherwise have a relevant competing interest.
  • Editorial staff must not use information obtained through manuscript handling for personal, academic or institutional gain.
  • The Editor-in-Chief shall ensure that recused individuals have no influence over reviewer selection, correspondence, recommendations or the final decision.

Special Procedure for Editorial Board, Editor and Same-Institution Submissions

To address risks of institutional bias, JBUMDC applies the following safeguards to manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Associate/Assistant Editors, Editorial Board members, editorial office staff, or authors closely associated with the journal's parent institution when an institutional relationship could reasonably be perceived to affect editorial judgment:

  1. The conflicted editor shall be formally recused from the manuscript and shall have no role in reviewer selection, editorial recommendations, decision-making or communications concerning the decision.
  2. An independent handling editor shall be appointed. Where feasible, the handling editor will be from outside the relevant department or institutional reporting line and will have full authority over the editorial process.
  3. At least two independent peer reviewers shall be selected according to the journal's peer-review criteria. Where institutional affiliation creates a risk of bias, reviewers should preferably be external to the authors' institution.
  4. The manuscript shall undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards applied to all other submissions.
  5. The editorial system shall record the identity of the recused editor, the independent handling editor, reviewer assignments, decisions and dates.
  6. For editorials, commentaries or other invited content authored by an editor or Editorial Board member, the same recusal and independent handling principles shall apply.
  7. The journal shall not treat institutional affiliation alone as evidence of misconduct; the purpose of this procedure is to protect both actual independence and confidence in the integrity of the process.

Independent Handling Editor

An independent handling editor is responsible for overseeing manuscripts in which the usual editor has a conflict. The handling editor shall have authority to select reviewers, assess reports, request revisions, make or recommend the editorial decision, and document the basis for the decision. The conflicted editor shall not override or direct the independent handling editor.

Editorials and Invited Content

Because bias can be more difficult to detect in editorials, commentaries and review articles, any such submission authored by an editor, Editorial Board member or closely affiliated institutional author shall be independently handled and assessed. The journal shall disclose relevant author conflicts in accordance with its publication policies.

Disclosure, Recusal and Documentation

  • Conflict declarations shall be requested at relevant stages of the editorial process.
  • Recusals shall be recorded in the journal's editorial management system or manuscript file.
  • The record should identify the conflict category, the person recused, the independent handling editor, and the action taken.
  • Where appropriate, the journal may retain conflict declarations and related records for audit and quality-assurance purposes.
  • Confidential conflict information shall be accessed only by authorised editorial personnel.

Undisclosed or Disputed Conflicts

  • Where an undisclosed conflict is identified, the Editor-in-Chief or delegated independent editor shall assess whether the integrity of the review or decision may have been affected.
  • Where necessary, the reviewer or editor may be replaced and the review may be repeated.
  • If the issue concerns possible publication misconduct or a serious breach of editorial integrity, the journal shall investigate under its Publication Ethics and Malpractice and Conflict Resolution procedures.
  • Where appropriate, concerns may be referred to the relevant institution or other competent body in accordance with applicable ethical guidance.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may raise concerns about a conflict of interest, institutional bias or improper handling through the journal's established appeal and complaint mechanisms. An appeal concerning an editorial conflict shall be reviewed by an individual who was not involved in the original decision.

Transparency and Editorial Independence

JBUMDC maintains editorial independence from institutional, commercial or personal interests. The journal does not permit institutional affiliation, academic rank, funding relationships or organisational interests to determine the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations.

Monitoring and Quality Assurance

  • The Editorial Board shall periodically review compliance with this policy.
  • Records of recusal and independent handling may be reviewed during internal editorial audits.
  • The policy shall be reviewed when relevant standards or publication-ethics guidance are substantially revised.
  • Training or orientation shall be provided to editors and editorial staff regarding conflict disclosure, recusal and institutional independence.

Related International Standards and Guidance

This policy is informed by the following recognised standards and guidance:

Implementation Statement

This policy forms part of the JBUMDC editorial governance framework and shall be applied consistently to all submissions. The journal will maintain documentary evidence of conflict declarations, recusals, independent handling and editorial decisions to demonstrate that the policy is implemented in practice.


Artificial Intelligence (AI) Usage Policy

Purpose

  • To ensure responsible, transparent, and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in research and manuscript preparation in line with HEC (2024), COPE, and ICMJE recommendations.

Acceptable Uses

  • Grammar, spelling, and language editing (e.g., Grammarly, ChatGPT for proofreading).
  • Data visualization, formatting, or basic statistical assistance when results are human verified.
  • Reference formatting or literature screening support.

Unacceptable Uses

  • Generating original text, hypotheses, interpretations, or conclusions.
  • Fabricating data, results, or references.
  • Submitting AI-generated manuscripts or figures without human oversight.
  • Listing AI as an author.

Disclosure

  • Authors must declare all AI tool usage in the Acknowledgment or Methods section.
    Failure to disclose may result in rejection or retraction.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS:

JBUMDC follows ICJME guidelines for peer review process. Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details.

  • Reviewers therefore should keep manuscripts and the information they contain strictly confidential.
  • Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published.
  • Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.
  • Reviewers who seek assistance from a trainee or colleague in the performance of a review should acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in the written comments submitted to the editor. These individuals must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript as outlined above.
  • Reviewers are expected to respond promptly to requests to review and to submit reviews within the time agreed. Reviewers’ comments should be constructive, honest, and polite.
  • Reviewers should declare their relationships and activities that might bias their evaluation of a manuscript and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.

ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR EDITORS:

The editors take responsibility for overseeing the integrity of the editorial process. The following provides details on specific ethical aspects of their role.

  • Editors should defend the confidentiality of authors and peer-reviewers (names and reviewer comments) in accordance with ICMJE policy.
  • Editors should take all reasonable steps to check the facts in journal content, and should ensure that staff working for the journal adhere to best journalistic practices including contemporaneous note-taking and seeking a response from all parties when possible before publication.

To support the Editor checks are made by Managing Editor, Associate Editors and Assistant Editors. However, editors should still report any concerns on any aspect. Checks include:

  • Ethical approval and permissions for research involving human subjects, animals.
  • Plagiarism, duplicate publication, and that necessary permission from the copyright holder to include already-published figures or images.
  • An international clinical trial register for pre-register clinical trials or and to cite a reference to the registration in the Methods Section.
  • Author background and qualification.

If the assistant editor has ethical concerns about a manuscript sent for review or decision, or receives information about a possible ethical breach after publication, they must contact the editor as soon as possible. Our Editorial Office will then conduct an investigation according to COPE guidelines.

When making a final acceptance decision on a manuscript, academic editors should consider the following:

  • Any facts that might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest of the author(s) must be disclosed in the paper prior to submission.
  • Authors must accurately present their research findings and include an objective discussion of the significance of their findings.
  • Data and methods used in the research need to be presented in sufficient detail in the paper, so that other researchers can replicate the work.

Editorial freedom

The JBUMDC adopts ICMJE guidelines for editorial freedom, which adopts the World Association of Medical Editors’ definition of editorial freedom, which holds that editors-in-chief have full authority over the entire editorial content of their journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Editors should base editorial decisions on the validity of the work and its importance to the journal’s readers, not on the commercial implications for the journal, and editors should be free to express critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine without fear of retribution, even if these views conflict with the commercial goals of the publisher.

Quality Assurance and Audit Policy

Objective

  • To maintain editorial integrity, ethical compliance, and continuous improvement.

Internal Audit

Conducted annually by the editorial board to review:

  • Plagiarism and ethics screening procedures.
  • Reviewer selection and performance.
  • Editorial timelines and transparency.
  • COPE/ICMJE/HEC compliance.

External Audit

  • Every two years, external experts evaluate:
  • Indexing and visibility compliance (HEC, PMDC).
  • Data security, DOI assignment, and archiving.

Audit Report

  • A formal Quality Audit Report is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief and shared with the parent institution.