Preamble
Vita Medica Scientica Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics across all published content. The policies outlined in this document govern the conduct of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and editorial staff. They are developed in alignment with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and other internationally recognised standards.
These policies apply uniformly to all submissions, irrespective of the authors’ geographic location, institutional affiliation, funding source, or the journal’s access model.
The journal operates under an open access publishing model. All article processing charges (APCs) are transparently disclosed at the point of submission, and editorial decisions are made independently of any author’s ability or willingness to pay.
1. Publication Ethics Statement
The publication ethics framework of Vita Medica Scientica Journal assigns clear responsibilities to authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. Non-compliance with these responsibilities may result in corrective actions, including investigation, correction, or retraction where necessary.
1.1 Responsibilities of Authors
Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal must:
- Ensure the originality of submitted work and confirm it is not under consideration elsewhere or previously published in substantially similar form.
- Guarantee the accuracy and integrity of all reported data, ensuring no fabrication, falsification, or selective omission occurs.
- Obtain all necessary ethical approvals prior to conducting research, including institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee clearance.
- Disclose all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research.
- Adhere to authorship criteria defined in Section 4.
- Promptly notify the journal of any significant errors discovered after publication.
1.2 Responsibilities of Reviewers
Peer reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective, confidential, and constructive evaluations.
- Declare any conflicts of interest and decline review when appropriate.
- Refrain from using unpublished information for personal advantage.
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
- Base evaluations solely on scientific quality, originality, and relevance.
1.3 Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for:
- Ensuring editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit.
- Maintaining strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
- Managing conflicts of interest appropriately.
- Investigating allegations of misconduct fairly and promptly.
- Applying editorial policies consistently.
1.4 Responsibilities of the Publisher
The publisher is responsible for:
- Maintaining transparent and publicly accessible ethical policies.
- Safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record through corrections and retractions.
- Ensuring long-term digital preservation of published content.
- Reviewing and updating policies regularly.
2. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are fully independent of commercial interests or external influence.
2.1 Separation of Editorial and Commercial Operations
Editorial processes are entirely separated from financial operations. APC status does not influence editorial decisions.
2.2 Authority of the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all editorial decisions. The publisher does not intervene in acceptance or rejection decisions. Allegations of misconduct are handled by an independent integrity process.
2.3 Editorial Board Governance
Editorial board members are selected based on academic expertise and are governed by established editorial governance policies reviewed annually.
3. Peer Review Policy
The journal employs a structured peer review system to ensure scientific rigor and integrity.
3.1 Peer Review Model
The default model is double-anonymised peer review, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Alternative review models may be applied where clearly stated.
3.2 Review Process
- Initial editorial screening assesses scope and quality.
- Suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers.
- Reviewers typically submit reports within 21 days.
- Editorial decisions include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
- Revised manuscripts may undergo further review.
3.3 Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Relevant expertise and publication record.
- Absence of conflicts of interest.
- Availability within the required timeframe.
3.4 Integrity of Peer Review
Any attempt to manipulate peer review, including falsified reviewer identities or unethical influence, constitutes serious misconduct and may result in rejection or submission bans.
4. Authorship Criteria
Authorship is based on the ICMJE guidelines and implies both credit and responsibility.
4.1 Criteria for Authorship
Each author must meet all of the following:
- Significant contribution to conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis.
- Drafting or critical revision of the manuscript.
- Final approval of the published version.
- Accountability for all aspects of the work.
Individuals not meeting these criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.
4.2 Corresponding Author Responsibilities
The corresponding author ensures:
- Proper inclusion of all qualified authors.
- Agreement of all co-authors on submission and revisions.
- Accurate disclosure of contributions and conflicts of interest.
- Communication with the journal regarding corrections.
4.3 Authorship Changes
Any changes in authorship require written consent from all authors and are only permitted in justified cases. Post-publication changes are corrected via formal notices.
4.4 Contributor Roles
The use of the CRediT taxonomy is encouraged for transparent contribution reporting.
5. Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest arises when secondary interests may influence scientific judgment.
5.1 Author Disclosure
Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships relevant to the manuscript. Declarations are published with the article.
5.2 Reviewer Conflicts
Reviewers must decline assignments if conflicts exist, including collaborations, financial interests, or personal relationships with authors.
5.3 Editor Conflicts
Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.
6. Data Availability and Reproducibility
The journal supports open science and transparency.
6.1 Data Availability Statement
All original research must include a data availability statement specifying:
- Public access to datasets with repository details, OR
- Availability upon reasonable request, OR
- Restrictions due to ethical or legal limitations.
6.2 Recommended Repositories
Examples include Zenodo, Figshare, OSF, NCBI, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
6.3 Code Availability
Authors are encouraged to share analysis code in public repositories with persistent identifiers.
7. Research Misconduct
The journal has zero tolerance for unethical research practices.
7.1 Plagiarism
Includes direct copying, improper paraphrasing, image reuse, or self-plagiarism without disclosure.
7.2 Duplicate Publication
Simultaneous or redundant publication is strictly prohibited.
7.3 Data Fabrication and Falsification
Inventing or manipulating data constitutes serious misconduct.
7.4 Image Integrity
Only minimal, uniform image adjustments are permitted. Manipulation that alters scientific meaning is prohibited.
7.5 Citation Manipulation
Coercive or inappropriate citation practices are not permitted.
8. Corrections and Retractions
8.1 Corrections
Minor errors are corrected via errata or corrigenda depending on origin.
8.2 Retractions
Retracted articles remain in the public record with clear labelling and explanation.
8.3 Expressions of Concern
Issued when investigations are ongoing and reliability is uncertain.
9. Complaints and Appeals
9.1 Appeals
Authors may appeal decisions within 60 days, providing evidence of procedural or factual errors.
9.2 Misconduct Investigations
Allegations are reviewed through a structured process including acknowledgment, assessment, investigation, and outcome determination.
9.3 Publisher Complaints
Complaints regarding publisher conduct may be directed to the journal ethics office.
10. Human and Animal Research Ethics
10.1 Human Research
Must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and include ethics approval and informed consent.
10.2 Patient Privacy
Identifiable data require explicit consent.
10.3 Animal Research
Must comply with ARRIVE guidelines and institutional ethical standards, including adherence to the 3Rs principles.
11. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use
11.1 Manuscript Preparation
AI tools may be used for language editing if disclosed transparently.
11.2 Authorship
AI tools cannot be listed as authors.
11.3 Undisclosed Use
Failure to disclose AI assistance is considered an ethical violation.
11.4 Editorial Use
Confidentiality must be preserved when AI tools are used in editorial workflows.
12. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
12.1 Non-Discrimination
Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit.
12.2 Board Diversity
The journal promotes diversity in editorial board composition.
12.3 Language Accessibility
Manuscripts are evaluated on scientific content rather than language perfection.
13. Confidentiality
All manuscripts, reviews, and editorial communications are strictly confidential until publication.
Personal data is handled in accordance with applicable data protection regulations.
14. Open Access and Licensing
All articles are published under Creative Commons licenses (CC BY 4.0 by default unless otherwise stated). Authors retain copyright.
APCs are charged upon acceptance, with waivers available where applicable. Payment status does not affect editorial decisions.
15. Digital Preservation
Published content is archived in trusted preservation systems such as CLOCKSS and Portico to ensure long-term accessibility.
16. Policy Review
This policy is reviewed annually by the Editorial Ethics Committee of Vita Medica Scientica Journal. Updated versions are assigned revision numbers and effective dates.