Editorial policies and peer review process:

All the submitted articles must comply in full with the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.

Publication schedule:

  • Time from receiving manuscript to initial (provisional) approval/disapproval by editorial board: 10 Days
  • Time from approval to completion of peer review: 8-12 Weeks
  • Time for authors to send back the correction or explanations to comments by peer reviewers: 2 weeks
  • Time for final acceptance by the editorial board based on peer review process:2 weeks
  • Time for authors to send in the final corrected draft: 2 weeks
  • Time for JPBMS to set up the article in its format:  2 weeks
  • Time for authors to do the final proof reading: 1 week
  • Time for JPBMS to do the proof read changes: 1 week
  • Time for JPBMS to Publish the Online First version:10 working days.

The manuscripts submitted, were sent for peer review on the understanding that manuscripts are free from plagiarism, not submitted elsewhere, multiply submitted to other journals or accepted for publication in other journals.

Entire work flow is performed by journal manuscript management and publishing system. On submission of manuscript, the editorial staff will acknowledge the submission and initially assessed by executive editor for an originality, plagiarism and scientific flaws. The Journal has zero tolerance for plagiarism; any submitted article found in the act of plagiarism will be rejected without prior notice to the corresponding author and the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Peer review processes for submitted article will initiate by the editor based on the availability of subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment in a timely manner. The editor will inform the author about acceptance of their article for peer review process or rejection via an email.

If article finds under spectrum/scope of the journal, the editor will assign minimum 3  or maximum 5 external reviewers for peer review process.

All reviewers were bound to the standard and ethical reviewer guidelines provided by journal and review report should be submitted in the standard format, with grading assigned to review the article along with valuable comments.

Once review reports submitted by authors, the editor can make the following editorial recommendations.

  • Published without alteration
  • Accepted with minor changes
  • Consider with major changes
  • Rejected

With editorial recommendations, editor inform author the decision or notify the author to prepare and submit modify/revised copy of the manuscript as per the comments marked by reviewers.

The editor reviews the revised copy and further sent it to the second round of peer review process for correspondence with external reviewers. Once the external reviewers and the editor is satisfied with modified copy, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

The whole review process is double blind process; neither the author nor the reviewer of submitted manuscript has access to each other’s identity. The editor has full authority in rejecting any manuscript due to any irregularities, inappropriateness of its subject, has concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. The journal editor cannot assign himself as an external reviewer of submitted manuscript.

The journal follows the correspondence samples developed CSE Editorial Policy Committee for specific situation that a journal editor follows when managing ethical issues.

Journal request both authors and editor to follow the link to handle the specific situation:

Sample Letters Organized for authors: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/sample-correspondence-for-an-editorial-office/sample-letters-organized-recipient/
Sample Letters For editors: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/editorial-policies/sample-correspondence-for-an-editorial-office/sample-letters-organized-subject/
Source credit for sample correspondence: Council of science editors.

Confidentiality

Editorial staff will maintain confidentiality of the submitted articles. Reviewers involved in review process required to maintain confidentiality of review process and not allowed to discuss article report or process to authors or any third party. Any articles submitted or under correspondence with the journal, confidential content and referees’ report must not be posted in any public domain or any website without prior permission from the editorial office/staff.

Disclosure:

For the submitted article authors are sole responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. Authors have to submit disclosure for any potential conflict of interest associated with submitted article. Individual studies received funds from any source either government, private or commercial firms information should along with or in cover letter.

Misconduct

As a member of COPE, Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences takes all misconduct seriously. In case of any misconduct journal follows COPE guidelines to deal with suspect case of misconduct. Suspected case will discuss with COPE forum.

COPE guidelines for dealing suspected misconduct.

Research misconduct
Research involving humans and animals must be carried out in ethical framework. Any suspected case of research misconduct will leads to rejection of submitted manuscript and retraction of published article in case if research misconduct proved in the published articles.(See publication ethics)

Publication misconduct

As a member of COPE, Journal will follow all COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of potential publication misconduct.

COPE Guidelines for publication misconduct.

Conflict of interests (COI):

Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties).

These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

Disclosure
All participants in the peer review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.

Disclosure of these relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it is can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict of interest and financial interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Individual Authors’ Commitments
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict of interest notification page that follows the title page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Notification Page
Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Investigators must disclose potential conflicts to study participants and should state in the manuscript whether they have done so.

Editors also need to decide when to publish information disclosed by authors about potential conflicts. If doubt exists, it is best to error on the side of publication.

Potential Conflicts of Interest Related to Project Support

Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.
Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze it independently, to prepare manuscripts, and to publish them. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases of othersorts. Some journals, therefore, choose to include information about the sponsor’s involvement in the methods section.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement such as, “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.” Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors’ right to publish.

Potential Conflicts of Interest
Related to Commitments of Editors, Journal Staff, or Reviewers
Editors should avoid selecting external peer reviewers with obvious potential conflicts of interest, for example, those who work in the same department or institution as any of the authors. Authors often provide editors with the names of persons they feel should not be asked to review a manuscript because of potential conflicts of interest, usually professional. When possible, authors should be asked to explain or justify their concerns; that information is important to editors in deciding whether to honor such requests.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that such conflicts exist that they have failed to disclose, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and disqualify themselves from any decisions where they have a conflict of interest. Editorial staff must not use the information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of journal staff.

Source credit: [International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) – Feb. 2006]

COPE flowcharts

What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest (Col) in a submitted manuscript

What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed conflict of interest (CoI) in a published article

Source credit: [COPE]

For COI form and further details, please visit: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

Piracy is defined as the unauthorized reproduction or use of ideas, data, or methods from others without adequate permission or acknowledgment. Again, deceit plays a central role in this form of misconduct. The intent of the perpetrator is the untruthful portrayal of the ideas or methods as his or her own.

Plagiarism is a form of piracy that involves the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language (figures, images, or tables) and thoughts of others and the representation of them as one’s own original work without permission or acknowledgment by the author of the source of these materials. Plagiarism generally involves the use of materials from others, but can apply to researchers’ duplication of their own previously published reports without acknowledgment (this is sometimes called self-plagiarism or duplicate publication).
Source: Council of Science editors

Policy:

The journal is associated with group of experienced and expert editors from the publication industry who will verify the originality of submitted papers apart from this the papers will scan with the help of the CrossCheck database. Any misconduct ends with initial rejection. In case if any misconduct found after publication of paper in the journal, the editorial office will contact author’s affiliated institute and funding agencies with bidirectional statement linked online to and from the original paper and linked to the plagiarised published paper with reference and plagiarized content will be marked.

The Journal follows COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Plagiarism may also leads to retraction of paper.

COPE flowcharts

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript

Duplicate or overlap publication:

Duplicate (or redundant) publication is the publication of a paper that is substantially similar to a published paper by the same author, without acknowledging the source and without obtaining the permission of the original copyright holder. (Source: ICMJE)

Paper submitted to the journal must be original. Authors should declare any duplicate publications during the time of submission with proper citation of duplicate publications.

The journal reserve rights to judge any duplicate publications.

COPE flowcharts

Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript 

Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript

 Retraction and Errata:

Articles may be retracted or withdrawn by their authors, academic or institutional sponsor, editor or publisher, because of pervasive error or unsubstantiated or irreproducible data.

Policy:

Information will be displayed at the journals website stating that article is “retracted” wholly or partially. Retraction are indexed and linked to the original article (labelled and published in citable form).

Errata:

Errata are published in citable form and notice will appear on a numbered page in a subsequent issue of the journal in which the article was originally published.

The journal follow NLM retraction policy.

For more details reading please visit: Errata, Retractions, Partial Retractions, Corrected and Republished Articles, Duplicate Publications, Comments (including Author Replies), Updates, Patient Summaries, and Republished (Reprinted) Articles Policy for MEDLINE.

Reprint:

The journal occasionally republish (i.e., reprint) and if reprint than cited as “Republished from:” and “Republished. Link will be created between original article and republished article.

Training of Editors

The journal assigns a managing and a section editor, received an initial training to detect any irregularities. Editorial staff will have time to time updates and training from our outsource partner companies for recent advancements in of publication process and technology.

Internal audit

For proper editorial management the journal will carry internal audit from guest editors every two year to detect and prevent any breaches. Internal audit includes random and blind collection of articles and peer review by third party or guest editor.

Complaint policy:

Please registered you complaint at editors@jpbms.info

JPBMS author licence and open access policy:

The journal follows open publishing model.

Open access:

Open access (OA) refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access (e.g., access tolls) and free of many restrictions on use (e.g. certain copyright and license restrictions).Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

Hybrid Open access: A hybrid open access journal is an subscription journal in which some of the articles are open access. This status typically requires the payment of a publication fee (also called an article processing charge or APC) to the publisher. Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_open_access_journal

All open access articles in the journal are published under Creative Commons licences. CC BY licence allows unrestricted reuse of the article providing the author(s) and original source are properly cited.

Alternative Creative Commons open access licenses are available on request, please contact the editorial office.

All open access articles associated with Article Processing Charges (APC) and available freely on the journals  platform.

Fee waiver policy:

Partial fee waiver for submitted open access articles based on HINARI Countries and will considered on a case-by-case basis. Request for waiver should be made prior or during the article submission; request during the review process or during editing or after acceptance will not be considered.

Benefits of Open access:

  1. Freely available to journals audience and readers
  2. Increased readership
  3. Increased citation with more impact as compared to subscription based
  4. Greater world wide collaborative research

Self archiving policy:

After publication of open access article, the journal encouraged authors to submit their final author copy to PubMedCentral, institution’s repositories, appropriate funding body’s archive or website.

Reuse of published content:

Any reuse of the published content/articles is subjected to permission from editorial office of the journal. Achieved content may not be re-used for any commercial purpose or commercial advantage by the means of sale, resale, licence, loan, bulk promotion and other form of commercial promotions.

Any archived content of journal may not be published verbatim in whole or in part, whether or not this is done for Commercial Purposes, either in print or online.

It is the moral responsibility that re-used content should be full attributed as a link of journals website from which content was re-used using article DOI.

The journal restricted and applied prohibition for whole sale re-publishing.