Ethic in Publishing
Publication Ethics
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. Though this journal has not yet obtained its membership with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we are committed to adhering to the standards and guidelines set out by COPE and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We follow all guidelines set by COPE and ICMJE and we are committed to preventing any misconducts in scientific publishing.
Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
COPE Guidelines
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.
Authorship and Contributorship
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 as stated in the author guidelines.
NSMC will have a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. The complaints will be clarified to a respected person with respect to the case of complaint. The scope of complaints include anything related to the journal business process, i.e. editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The complaint cases will be processed according to COPE guideline.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. Authors are responsible for data reproducibility.
If the research work involves chemicals, human, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, the authors must provide legal and ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
The editor of NSMC is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
This journal operates a double-blind review process. All incoming manuscripts will be initially assessed by the editor for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The recommendations from the reviewers typically are one these: accept for publication, major revision needed, minor revision needed, and decline submission. While the first and the last options are quite self-explanatory, the others may require the authors to revise the initial manuscript accordingly to the suggestions made by the reviewers. All questions arose from the editor and reviewers during the review process need to be addressed and answered along with the submission of the revised manuscript.
The Editor-in-Chief is then responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles based on the revised manuscript. Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
Post Publication Discussion and Corrections
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 journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Policy on Human and Animal Rights
When reporting experiments on people, authors should indicate whether the procedures used in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national). In most cases, authors must explicitly state that the research was approved by the national/local/institutional ethical committee.
If no formal ethics committee is available, the authors must state that the research was in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration (2013). The editors of NSMC reserve the rights to ask more information to the author(s) should any doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. In such cases, the authors must be able to explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that no human or patient rights were violated.
Patient consent must be collected in written form and archived by the authors. NSMC is aware that patient identity is confidential. Therefore, the authors should archive the written consent and instead of providing NSMC with a written statement that attests that the author(s) have collected and archived the consent.
When reporting experiments on animals, author(s) should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance and issue on animal research ethics should follow the Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus.