CURRENT ISSUE • JULY - DECEMBER 2016 • VOLUME VOL 19
 

Publication Ethics

The Journal of Medical Sciences (JMS) from Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences is committed to publishing only original material, i.e., material that has neither been published elsewhere, nor is under review elsewhere. .

Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
JMS is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. This statement spells out ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for this journal, i.e., the author, the editors, the peer-reviewers and the Publisher (SKIMS). This statement is based on recommendations of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), abides by its Code of Conduct, and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.

DUTIES OF EDITORS

Decision on the Publication of Articles
The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor of JMS are responsible for deciding which of the articles accepted for publication after undergoing double blind peer review should be published. The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. However, neither the Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor have the authority to influence the reviewers who are conducting the blind review of the articles submitted for peer review.

Fair Play
Manuscripts submitted to JMS shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief, Executive 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.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

Contribution to Double Blind Peer Review
Double Blind Peer review assists the reviewers in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. The reviewers do not know the author’s identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review. Reviewers’ comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only the Editor-in-Chief and the Executive Editor

Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review can excuse from the review process by notifying the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Editor.

Confidentiality
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-in-Chief or the Executive Editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Editor about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Confidentiality
Privileged information or ideas obtained through double blind peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. .

Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not review 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. .

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting Standards
Authors of original research papers 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 work and/or words of others, which must be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple Publications
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.

Acknowledgment 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 Manuscript
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
The Corresponding Author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. 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 paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviourand are unacceptable.

Data Access And Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the 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.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

Acknowledgment of Funding Sources
Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.

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 Editor-in-Chief and the Executive Editor and cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper