Editorial governance, peer review, research integrity, publication ethics, and stewardship of the scholarly record.
The journal is committed to responsible editorial practice, scientific integrity, rigorous peer review, transparent editorial standards, and preservation of an accurate scholarly record. These policies apply to all content published by the journal, including original research, reviews, brief reports, case reports, clinical images, editorials, perspectives, correspondence, special issues, supplements, and other scholarly content. The journal's policies are informed by internationally recognized standards in biomedical and scholarly publishing, including the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), relevant guidance and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Scientific merit, methodological quality, ethical integrity, transparency, relevance to the journal's scope, and protection of the scholarly record guide editorial decisions throughout submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication assessment.
Editorial decisions at the journal are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief and the academic editors responsible for individual manuscripts. Decisions regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection are based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical integrity, reporting quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and scholarly contribution. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, as Publisher, and Treata Scholars, as Co-Publisher, support the journal's publishing activities but do not determine the editorial outcome of individual manuscripts. Financial relationships, sponsorship, commercial interests, institutional relationships, personal relationships, or characteristics such as nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, religion, political belief, geographic origin, institutional affiliation, professional status, career stage, or ability to pay do not determine editorial decisions. The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for protecting the independence and integrity of the editorial process. Related governance information is available in the Journal Governance statement.
Editors must not participate in the assessment or decision-making process for manuscripts in which a financial, professional, academic, institutional, personal, or other relationship could reasonably affect their impartiality. When such a conflict exists, responsibility for the manuscript is transferred to another suitably qualified editor without the conflict. Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Editorial Board, journal staff, or individuals associated with the Publisher or Co-Publisher are subject to the same scientific and ethical requirements as other submissions, and the submitting individual must have no role in reviewer selection, access to confidential peer-review information, editorial deliberations, or the final decision on that manuscript. An independent academic editor may be appointed when necessary to protect the integrity of the process.
The journal uses a Double-anonymized peer-review model for manuscripts selected for external review, meaning that authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers and reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Submitted manuscripts first undergo editorial assessment for scope, scientific relevance, methodological adequacy, ethical acceptability, originality, reporting quality, and completeness, and manuscripts with substantial deficiencies or limited relevance may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts proceeding to external review are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate scientific or clinical expertise, while additional statistical, methodological, ethical, or specialist review may be obtained where necessary. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the editorial decision by numerical majority; final responsibility rests with the responsible academic editor and, where appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief. Revised manuscripts may be returned to previous reviewers, evaluated by new reviewers, or assessed directly by the editor depending on the nature and extent of the revision. Invited editorials, journal statements, and certain other forms of content may follow an alternative editorial pathway when scientifically appropriate.
Practical guidance for invited reviewers is available on the For Reviewers page.
Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential scholarly communications. Editors, reviewers, journal staff, and other individuals involved in evaluation must not disclose unpublished information or use it for personal, professional, commercial, academic, or competitive advantage. Reviewers must not share manuscripts with colleagues, trainees, or other individuals without prior permission from the journal, and any authorized person who contributes materially to a review should be disclosed to the editor. Manuscripts, figures, supplementary material, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial information must not be uploaded to AI systems or external services when confidentiality, data retention, ownership, or secondary use cannot be adequately assured. Confidential information may nevertheless be disclosed when necessary for investigation of suspected misconduct, fulfillment of legal obligations, or management of serious concerns affecting participant safety or research integrity.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of appropriate expertise and their ability to provide an independent scientific assessment. They must disclose circumstances that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their impartiality and should decline review when a relevant conflict exists. Reviews should focus on scientific questions, study design, methodology, analysis, interpretation, reporting, originality, ethics, and relevance as appropriate and should be specific, evidence-based, professional, and respectful. Personal criticism, discriminatory statements, hostile language, and requests unrelated to scientific quality are unacceptable. Reviewers must not use confidential information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage and must not request irrelevant citations primarily to increase citations to themselves, their colleagues, institutions, or particular journals. Concerns regarding plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts, ethical problems, or other potential misconduct should be reported confidentially to the editor.
Additional reviewer guidance is available on the For Reviewers page.
Article withdrawal refers to removal of a manuscript from editorial consideration before publication and is distinct from correction or retraction of a published article. Before external peer review begins, authors may request withdrawal by contacting the Editorial Office, and the corresponding author should confirm that all authors are aware of and agree with the request. Once external peer review has begun, withdrawal should not be used merely to transfer a manuscript to another journal while the journal process remains active; a request at this stage should include a clear reason, and the manuscript must not be submitted elsewhere until the Editorial Office has formally confirmed withdrawal. Authors may request withdrawal where editorial or peer-review processing has been subject to a substantial unexplained delay. Withdrawal after acceptance is ordinarily not permitted but may be considered in exceptional circumstances, including discovery of a serious error, accidental duplicate submission, an ethical or legal problem, or another circumstance that makes publication inappropriate. Withdrawal requests should identify the manuscript, explain the reason, and confirm agreement of all authors, and the journal may request additional written confirmation where necessary. Withdrawal does not terminate investigation of suspected multiple submission, plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, fabricated or falsified data, or other publication-ethics concerns, and the journal may continue an integrity assessment or communicate with relevant institutions or authorities where warranted. Once an article has been published, concerns are addressed through correction, retraction, expression of concern, or removal procedures rather than manuscript withdrawal.
Individuals who contributed to a study but do not meet authorship criteria may be acknowledged, and authors should obtain permission from individuals named in the Acknowledgments because such inclusion may imply knowledge of or association with the work. Medical writing, language assistance, technical support, statistical consultation, and other substantial non-author contributions should be identified where relevant, together with the source of financial support for such assistance when applicable.
All participants in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and Editorial Board members, should disclose relationships or activities that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, their professional judgment. Such interests may include employment, consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria, research funding, patents, stock ownership, institutional interests, personal relationships, academic competition, or other relevant circumstances. Every manuscript must contain a competing-interest declaration, including an explicit statement when no relevant competing interests exist. Disclosure of a competing interest does not automatically prevent publication; the journal determines whether the relationship can be managed appropriately and whether readers require disclosure in order to interpret the work. Failure to disclose a relevant interest may result in editorial action before or after publication.
All financial and material support relevant to a manuscript must be disclosed, and authors should describe the role of funders or sponsors in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit when applicable. If a funder had no role in these activities, this may be stated explicitly. Investigators remain responsible for the integrity of their research and the accuracy of the report, and financial or contractual relationships do not remove this responsibility. The journal does not consider sponsor agreements an acceptable basis for preventing researchers from reviewing their data, independently interpreting findings, or publishing results solely because those results are unfavorable to the sponsor.
Research involving human participants, identifiable human information, medical records, or human biological materials must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements and with the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2024.
Where required, the study protocol must receive approval from an appropriately constituted and independent research ethics committee or institutional review board before the research begins. Authors must identify the responsible committee and report its approval or reference identifier when available.
When a competent authority formally determines that review is not required, grants an exemption, or waives a requirement for informed consent, the manuscript must identify the authority and describe the determination. Exemption from ethics review and waiver of informed consent are separate decisions. A retrospective study design, use of medical records, or removal of direct identifiers does not automatically remove ethics-review or consent obligations. The journal may request appropriate supporting documentation.
Consent to participate in research, consent to clinical treatment, and consent for publication are distinct and are not interchangeable. Appropriate research participation consent is required unless validly waived by a competent authority.
Where someone could reasonably be identified from clinical details, photographs, video, genetic or family information, or the combination of otherwise indirect details, written informed consent for publication must be obtained from that person or an appropriate legally authorized representative. The person giving consent should be shown the material intended for publication and informed that identifiable material may be available online.
For children and people unable to provide legally valid informed consent themselves, authorization from a legally authorized representative and the person's assent should be sought where appropriate to their capacity, circumstances, and applicable ethical and legal requirements.
Removal of names or masking of the eyes does not guarantee anonymity. Authors must omit unnecessary identifying details and must not alter data or clinical images in a manner that misrepresents scientific or clinical meaning.
Authors must obtain and securely retain appropriate signed publication-consent documentation and accurately report consent status in the manuscript. The journal may request confirmation or supporting documentation when justified, but does not routinely require patient identity documents or other unnecessary identifying records.
Ethics-review, consent, exemption, and legal-representation requirements may vary by jurisdiction and study type. Authors are responsible for explaining how the requirements applicable to their work were met. See the Instructions for Authors for manuscript reporting requirements.
Animal research must comply with relevant institutional, national, and internationally accepted standards for animal welfare. Authors should identify the approving animal ethics or oversight body and provide the relevant approval information where applicable, while Methods should contain sufficient information about animal welfare, experimental procedures, and efforts to minimize unnecessary suffering. Applicable ARRIVE recommendations should be followed.
For registration purposes, the journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) definition of a clinical trial: a research project that prospectively assigns individuals or groups to a health-related intervention to evaluate its relationship with a health outcome. This includes studies with or without randomization and with or without concurrent comparison or control groups.
Health-related interventions may include medications, devices, surgery, behavioral, educational, dietary or rehabilitation interventions, quality-improvement interventions, or changes in healthcare processes. Lack of randomization or of a control group does not automatically exempt a prospectively assigned interventional study from trial registration.
The journal requires registration in an acceptable, publicly accessible registry at or before the time of first participant consent for enrollment. Accepted registries include ClinicalTrials.gov and eligible primary registries in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) that meet ICMJE requirements, including adequate registration data fields.
The registration name, identifier, and date must be reported in the manuscript, and the registration identifier should appear at the end of the abstract. Approval from a research ethics committee does not substitute for trial registration.
Authors must explain material differences between the registered record and the manuscript, including substantive changes to eligibility, enrollment, intervention, outcomes, or planned analyses. Important amendments should be reflected in the registry where appropriate, and their timing and reasons should be reported transparently.
Retrospective registration is not equivalent to prospective registration and may make a manuscript ineligible for consideration. In rare exceptional circumstances, editors may examine the reasons for delayed registration and determine whether further consideration is justified. Any exception must be supported by a public registration record, a clear explanation of the delay in the publication, and a published editorial explanation of why the exception was allowed. The possibility of an exception does not remove The journal's general prospective-registration requirement.
Clinical trial reports submitted to the journal must include a data-sharing statement. It must clearly indicate whether de-identified individual participant data, including data dictionaries, will be shared; an undecided answer is insufficient. If sharing is planned, it must identify the data and supporting documents available, when access begins and ends, who can obtain access and for what purposes, and how requests are made.
For trials beginning participant enrollment on or after 1 January 2019, the trial registration record must include a data-sharing plan. Material changes to that plan must be reflected in both the registry record and the data-sharing statement in the manuscript.
Requiring a statement does not require unrestricted public release of every dataset. If data will not be shared or access is limited because of confidentiality, consent, ethical or legal restrictions, the statement must communicate the position and relevant conditions accurately.
Original research articles must include a Data Availability Statement describing whether and under what conditions the underlying data are available. Responsible sharing of de-identified data, code, protocols and related materials is encouraged when ethically and legally permissible.
Prospective registration is encouraged for other designs when a suitable registry exists. Systematic reviews eligible for PROSPERO or another appropriate prospective registry are expected to follow the study-registration provisions in the Instructions for Authors, and non-registration or substantive protocol deviations should be disclosed and explained. Registration does not substitute for transparent methods reporting.
The journal expects authors to follow the most appropriate current reporting guideline for their research design and may require submission of a completed reporting checklist. Relevant standards include CONSORT 2025 for randomized trials, SPIRIT 2025 for clinical trial protocols, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA 2020 and relevant extensions for systematic reviews, PRISMA-P for systematic review protocols, STARD for diagnostic-accuracy studies, STARD-AI for diagnostic-accuracy research involving artificial intelligence, TRIPOD+AI for clinical prediction models using regression or machine-learning approaches, TRIPOD-LLM for studies specifically developing, tuning, prompt-engineering, or evaluating large language models, CARE for case reports, COREQ or SRQR for qualitative research, SQUIRE for quality-improvement studies, CHEERS for economic evaluations, and ARRIVE for animal research. Relevant extensions should be used where applicable. Reporting guidelines improve transparency but do not substitute for appropriate research design, statistical analysis, ethical conduct, or scientific judgment.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and provenance of data reported in their manuscripts. Fabrication, falsification, misleading omission, inappropriate duplication, selective alteration, or manipulation intended to create a false scientific impression is incompatible with publication in the journal. The journal may request original data, statistical outputs, protocols, analytical code, laboratory records, ethics documentation, original images, or other material when necessary to evaluate a concern, and failure to provide reasonably requested documentation without adequate explanation may affect editorial consideration or result in further investigation. Research records should be retained in accordance with applicable institutional, legal, ethical, and funder requirements. Original research articles must include a Data Availability Statement explaining whether and under what conditions the underlying data can be accessed. The journal encourages responsible sharing of de-identified data, analytical code, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and other research materials when ethically and legally permissible, while restrictions related to consent, confidentiality, data-protection law, contractual obligations, or legitimate security concerns should be described transparently. Clinical trial reports should include an appropriate data-sharing statement, and publicly shared datasets should preferably be deposited in recognized repositories with persistent identifiers.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal should represent original scholarly work unless transparently identified as an acceptable form of secondary publication or other legitimate previously disseminated material. The journal may use similarity-detection and text-comparison tools, but a numerical similarity percentage is not regarded automatically as evidence of plagiarism; editors consider the source, extent, context, attribution, and nature of overlapping material. Reproduction of text, figures, tables, data, or copyrighted material requires appropriate attribution and, when legally required, permission. Plagiarism identified before publication may result in rejection, while post-publication plagiarism may result in correction, retraction, institutional notification, or other appropriate action depending on severity and its effect on the scholarly record. Manuscripts must not be simultaneously under consideration by another journal, and authors should disclose related manuscripts, reports, datasets, conference materials, and publications that overlap substantially with the submitted work. Substantial duplicate publication without appropriate justification and cross-reference is unacceptable, although legitimate secondary publication may be considered when appropriate permission has been obtained and the relationship with the original publication is transparently disclosed. Artificial fragmentation of a single study into minimally distinct publications may constitute redundant publication.
Posting a manuscript on a recognized scholarly preprint server does not, by itself, prevent consideration by the journal, provided that the preprint is disclosed during submission and its identifier or URL is supplied. Following publication, authors are encouraged to update the preprint record with the citation and DOI of the final Version of Record. Presentation of preliminary findings at a scientific meeting or publication of a conference abstract does not normally constitute prior publication, whereas more extensive dissemination may require editorial assessment based on the nature and amount of material already publicly available.
Scientific and clinical images must accurately represent the underlying data. Global adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color may be acceptable when they do not selectively obscure, enhance, remove, or introduce information in a way that changes scientific or clinical interpretation. Combining images from different experiments, acquisitions, fields, or time points should be identified clearly when relevant. Fabrication, inappropriate duplication, selective alteration, misleading splicing, removal of relevant information, or other manipulation creating a false impression is unacceptable. Authors should retain original unprocessed image files and provide them to the journal if requested.
Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI, large language models, chatbots, image-generation systems, or comparable AI-assisted technologies and should identify which tool was used and for what purpose. AI systems cannot qualify for authorship because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work, and human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution, integrity, confidentiality, and legality of all submitted content, including text, references, analyses, code, tables, figures, and images generated or modified using AI. When AI is part of the research methodology, its use should be described in sufficient detail for scientific assessment and, where feasible, reproducibility, while routine spelling, grammar, and conventional non-generative formatting assistance does not require the same level of disclosure. Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or confidential manuscript information to AI systems where confidentiality, retention, ownership, or secondary use cannot be assured, and reviewers seeking to use AI in a manner involving manuscript content must obtain appropriate permission and disclose such use while remaining personally responsible for the scientific quality of their review. Editors and editorial staff are similarly required to protect confidential manuscript information; AI may support administrative, technical, or production processes, but scientific evaluation and editorial decisions remain the responsibility of qualified humans, and The journal does not delegate manuscript acceptance or rejection decisions to automated systems.
The journal takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously whether they arise before or after publication. Potential misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated data or images, unethical research, undisclosed duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed competing interests, citation manipulation, and peer-review manipulation. Publication-process manipulation may also include paper-mill activity, fabricated or purchased manuscripts, fabricated reviewer identities, impersonation, coordinated peer-review manipulation, manipulated authorship, systematic citation manipulation, or other organized attempts to compromise the editorial process. Concerns are evaluated fairly and confidentially, and the journal seeks to distinguish honest error from deliberate misconduct where possible. The journal does not attempt to replace formal investigations that properly belong to institutions, employers, research-integrity offices, regulators, or other competent authorities and may refer relevant concerns and evidence to those bodies. Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the concern, editorial action may include suspension of review, rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, institutional notification, or other appropriate measures. Allegations are evaluated on their merits regardless of the identity or status of the person raising them, and confidentiality of whistleblowers is protected to the extent reasonably possible.
References should be selected because they are relevant to the scientific content rather than to artificially increase citation counts of particular authors, journals, institutions, or research groups. Reviewers and editors must not pressure authors to cite their own work, the journal, another journal, or another publication unless the recommended reference is genuinely relevant and improves the manuscript. Systematic citation manipulation may result in rejection or other editorial action. Reviewer suggestions submitted by authors are evaluated independently, and editors remain responsible for assessing reviewer expertise, suitability, identity, and independence to the extent reasonably possible. Fabricated reviewer identities, false contact information, impersonation, undisclosed participation in peer review, coordinated review rings, or other deceptive attempts to influence editorial decisions constitute publication misconduct and may result in suspension of editorial processing while the matter is investigated.
The journal corrects the scholarly record when an error materially affects the accuracy, interpretation, attribution, bibliographic information, or indexing of a published article without invalidating its principal findings. Substantive corrections are published as identifiable notices linked to the original article and explain the nature of the correction, whereas minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning, attribution, interpretation, or the scientific record may be corrected without a separate formal notice when appropriate. Material changes to published research are not made silently.
The journal may retract an article when reliable evidence demonstrates that its findings or conclusions are seriously unreliable because of error or misconduct, substantial plagiarism or redundant publication has occurred, research was conducted unethically, peer-review or publication processes were materially manipulated, or other circumstances fundamentally undermine the legitimacy of the publication. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record rather than punish authors. Retraction notices identify the affected article and explain the reason as clearly as circumstances permit, and retracted articles normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record while being clearly marked as retracted unless exceptional legal, privacy, or safety circumstances require removal. Disagreement among authors does not prevent the journal from correcting the scholarly record when the available evidence supports editorial action.
An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions have been raised about a publication but available evidence is incomplete, an institutional investigation is pending, or reliability cannot yet be determined. Such notices describe the unresolved concern without presenting unverified allegations as established fact and should be followed by an appropriate resolution when sufficient information becomes available, including no further action, correction, or retraction. Complete removal of published content is reserved for exceptional circumstances such as legal requirements, serious privacy violations, substantial risk of harm, or situations in which continued public availability of the content itself is inappropriate. Where feasible, the article landing page and bibliographic record remain available with an explanation for removal. Published material is not removed simply because findings become controversial, inconvenient, subsequently contradicted, or because authors later prefer that the article no longer be available.
The published Version of Record forms part of the permanent scholarly record and is not routinely replaced or erased when problems are identified. Material changes affecting interpretation, attribution, or scientific reliability are documented through correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another appropriate post-publication mechanism, and corresponding notices and metadata are linked to the affected publication where supported by the journal's infrastructure.
The journal supports evidence-based scholarly discussion of published work. Readers may submit correspondence or communicate concerns to the Editorial Office, and authors may be invited to respond when appropriate. Substantive concerns are evaluated according to their scientific and ethical significance regardless of whether they are raised privately, through scholarly correspondence, or through a legitimate post-publication discussion platform, and criticism is assessed on its content rather than the identity, affiliation, seniority, or status of the individual raising it.
The journal permits authors to appeal an editorial decision when they believe a material scientific, factual, procedural, or ethical issue was misunderstood or inadequately considered.
An appeal must identify the manuscript, specify the decision being challenged, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant evidence or a reasoned response. General disagreement with a decision, without a substantive basis for reconsideration, is insufficient.
Appeals should be sent to the Editorial Office at Contact the Editorial Office. The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt and refers the appeal to the Editor-in-Chief or another suitably qualified academic editor. An editor who was not materially involved in the original decision may be assigned when independent reassessment is appropriate.
The assessment may involve examination of the editorial record, clarification from the handling editor, additional methodological or specialist advice, or further peer review where justified. The outcome and an explanation are communicated to the corresponding author, subject to appropriate confidentiality.
An appeal does not guarantee additional peer review, reversal of the original decision, or acceptance. Repeated appeals without substantive new information are not reconsidered indefinitely.
The journal accepts complaints about the fairness, integrity, conduct, or administration of its editorial and publishing activities. A complaint about conduct or process is distinct from an appeal against a scientific decision.
Complaints may concern:
An author, reviewer, reader, contributor, research participant, or any other affected individual may report a concern. Complaints should be emailed to with the complainant's contact information, the manuscript identifier or article citation if available, a clear account of the concern, relevant dates and documentation, and the action being requested.
The Editorial Office acknowledges receipt and makes an initial assessment of the concern, supporting material, and appropriate handling route. A complaint about routine editorial or publishing procedures is referred to an editor or appropriate representative without a relevant conflict of interest.
Individuals whose conduct is directly challenged must not determine the complaint's outcome. The journal may review editorial records, seek additional information, or ask the individuals involved to explain their position. People whose conduct or decisions are questioned will ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse conclusion is reached.
The journal communicates the outcome and, where possible, the reasons for it, while respecting confidentiality, privacy, and legal restrictions. Possible outcomes include clarification, correction of a procedural problem, reconsideration of an editorial action, referral to a competent authority, or a determination that no further action is warranted.
The journal does not guarantee a particular outcome or reversal of an editorial decision as a result of a complaint. No fixed response or resolution deadline is promised.
Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief, Publisher, or Co-Publisher are to be handled separately from routine editorial decision-making by the Publisher's designated ethics representative. Contact details for this route are pending confirmation and will be provided on the Contact page.
Such complaints are handled through a designated representative of the the Publisher's designated ethics representative, separately from routine editorial decision-making. Individuals whose conduct is challenged must not participate in deciding the complaint. Any relevant conflict of interest affecting the designated representative must be identified and appropriately managed before substantive review.
The representative may seek supporting documents, obtain responses from affected individuals, and arrange further institutional assessment where appropriate. Complainants need not first submit their complaint to the journal Editorial Office. Relevant conflicts of interest must be addressed through appropriate institutional arrangements.
Complaints and appeals are handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information may be shared with people or competent bodies whose involvement is reasonably necessary for evaluation, fair response, institutional investigation, legal compliance, or protection of research integrity. Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in such circumstances.
The journal does not permit retaliation for raising a concern in good faith. Complaints are assessed on their substance rather than the complainant's seniority, affiliation, or relationship with the journal.
Authorship eligibility, author-order disputes, omitted contributors, and unauthorized changes to the author list are addressed in the Authorship Conflicts Policy. Allegations of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, or manipulation of editorial processes are addressed under Research Misconduct and Systematic Manipulation in the Editorial and Publication Policies. Post-publication concerns may result in a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another documented action where appropriate.
Manuscripts are evaluated on their scientific and scholarly content rather than the nationality, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, religion, political belief, geographic location, institutional prestige, professional status, career stage, or financial circumstances of the authors. Positive, negative, inconclusive, replication, and confirmatory findings are eligible for consideration when the research question, methodology, analysis, reporting, and interpretation meet journal standards, and perceived novelty does not justify overlooking methodological or ethical deficiencies.
Special issues, supplements, thematic collections, and other guest-edited content are subject to the same standards of research integrity, peer review, competing-interest management, and editorial independence as regular journal content. Guest Editors are selected on the basis of relevant expertise and must disclose competing interests, must not make decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict, and must not participate in peer review or decision-making for their own submissions. Manuscripts submitted by Guest Editors, or by authors with whom a Guest Editor has a relevant conflict, are handled by an independent editor. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall oversight and may require additional review, replace a reviewer or Guest Editor, or take other action required to maintain editorial standards. Any financial or institutional support associated with a special issue, supplement, or thematic collection is disclosed when applicable and does not confer control over manuscript selection or editorial decisions.
The journal is published by Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and co-published by Treata Scholars. The journal operates an immediate, no-fee, open-access publishing model.
Treata Scholars, as Co-Publisher, covers the costs of the journal's publication activities. Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences provides the institutional framework, server and hosting infrastructure, and responsibility for journal user-information management. Publishing and financial responsibilities are separate from scientific and editorial decision-making.
The journal charges no submission fee, editorial-assessment fee, peer-review fee, article processing charge (APC), publication fee, page charge, or mandatory color-figure charge. No author payment is required for editorial consideration, acceptance, or publication, and authors' financial circumstances do not influence editorial assessment. Because the journal does not charge author fees, no APC waiver or discount system is necessary.
The journal's fee policy is also described on the Open Access, Copyright and Licensing page.
The journal's publishing costs are supported by Treata Scholars in its role as Co-Publisher. This financial support does not entitle the Co-Publisher to determine manuscript selection, appoint preferred reviewers for individual submissions, alter scientific assessments, require acceptance or rejection, or influence published conclusions.
Any material change in the journal's financial or revenue model will be announced on its website. Any future author charges, if ever introduced, would be publicly specified before becoming applicable and would not retrospectively affect submissions received under the published no-fee policy.
The journal does not currently accept external commercial advertising. The journal does not sell placement in scholarly content or accept payment for promotional material presented as editorial work. Commercial organizations cannot purchase favorable peer review, preferential publication, or influence over editorial decisions.
Any future introduction of commercial advertising would be preceded by a public revision of this policy specifying permitted advertising types, responsibility for acceptance decisions, and separation from editorial content. No such arrangement is currently in operation.
The Editor-in-Chief and designated academic editors retain authority over assessment, peer review, acceptance, rejection, and scientific integrity. Financial supporters, the Publisher, Co-Publisher, service providers, and commercial parties have no authority to dictate decisions on individual manuscripts. See Journal Governance.
The journal may communicate directly with researchers whose academic or professional interests relate to the journal's scope. Messages may include invitations to submit manuscripts and relevant information about journal activities.
Such communications must clearly identify the journal and sender, accurately describe their purpose, and provide truthful, non-misleading information about the journal's scope, peer-review procedures, open-access publishing model, and author fees. Invitations do not guarantee external peer review, acceptance, preferential assessment, or publication.
The journal seeks to ensure that invitations are appropriately targeted, professionally relevant, and not unnecessarily intrusive. A recipient may request that future nonessential promotional communications stop by emailing Contact the Editorial Office.
Stopping promotional messages does not necessarily stop necessary communications about an active submission, peer-review responsibility, editorial investigation, or other existing professional obligation. Direct marketing does not influence editorial decisions.
The journal is a fully open-access journal, and the published Version of Record is made available online immediately without subscription charges or access embargo. Authors retain copyright in accordance with the journal's copyright policy, and the journal articles are normally published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). Authors may self-archive journal content in accordance with the applicable open-access and licensing terms. Detailed provisions governing copyright, reuse, licensing, third-party material, repository deposit, and self-archiving are provided on the Open Access, Copyright and Licensing page.
The journal participates in the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) digital preservation framework to support the continued availability and integrity of its published content.
Financial, commercial, technical, administrative, or publishing support does not confer authority over individual editorial decisions. Institutions, organizations, sponsors, service providers, or other parties providing operational or financial support cannot purchase or otherwise obtain preferential editorial treatment, favorable peer review, manuscript acceptance, or influence over scientific conclusions. Related provisions on advertising, commercial influence, and publication fees are described in the Advertising, Commercial Influence and Publication Fees section.
The journal reviews its editorial and publication policies periodically as standards in biomedical and scholarly publishing evolve, and material changes are reflected on the journal website. Where fairness requires it, procedural changes may be applied prospectively so that manuscripts already under consideration are not disadvantaged by unexpected changes in submission requirements. Changes in policy do not prevent the journal from acting on serious ethical or integrity concerns identified at any stage, including after publication.
Questions concerning the interpretation or application of these policies may be directed to the Editorial Office.
Questions concerning editorial policies, publication ethics, manuscript withdrawal, authorship, appeals, complaints, or post-publication concerns may be directed to the The journal Editorial Office at .
Last updated: 16 October 2026