Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Nova Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences (NJMBS) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes original research articles as well as review articles in several areas of Medical and Biological Sciences. The journal’s Editorial Board is divided into the subject areas related to Medical and Biological Sciences. This open access online journal publishes Quaternary.

NJMBS  aims primarily to promote prompt publication of Research articles, Review articles, Mini-reviews in all fields of Medical and Biological Sciences.

 

Section Policies

Original Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Nova Explore Publications journals are subjected a double blind peer review by expert reviewers with an in-depth knowledge of the specialized discipline and purpose of the process. Nova Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences accepts manuscripts that report novel findings, which could result in medicine and life sciences. Quality and topic of submitted manuscript beside the priority of research field are the least considered criteria in each manuscript before entering in formal review process. Any type of submissions containing scientific information necessitates review process to ensure content quality.

Associate editor checks the format and style of manuscript prior to review process to assure its compatibility with journals’s guidelines for authors. Checking compatibility continues in whole of the review process and publication. In cases when the authors have not considered the guidelines, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for compatibility. Each submitted manuscript will be considered by the editor-in-chief or one of associate editors in the editorial board. If it meets the minimum criteria to be included in review process, one of the editors (topic expert) selects at least two external reviewers for detailed evaluation process. Selection of reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Reviewers promise to undertake the confidentiality of materials previous to ePublication. In the review process of this journal, reviewers stay anonymous, but authors’ names are declared to reviewers. Also, authors could suggest reviewers for their manuscript.

Editor receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with decision letter to corresponding author. Final decision on each manuscript will be made by the assigned editor of the manuscript. As Nova Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences is a rapid response journal, so this process takes not more than three weeks. Decision letter determines the status of manuscript in five ways:

1. Acceptance: The manuscript could be e-Published ahead of print. This process lasts two weeks. Before ePublication, corresponding author could verify a proof copy of the paper. After ePublication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of the journals’ upcoming issues.

2. Minor revises: Authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, at which point the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy Microsoft Word Documents. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Unless, authors need to go through a resubmission process.

3. Major revises: It means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus on their highlighted points. 

4. Reject: In most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other journals.

5. Withdraw: If author decide to pool off the manuscript in any reason, he/she request for withdraw the manuscript by Emailing the editor. It is not possible to withdraw a manuscript during review process. During the following statuses the author could request for withdraw the manuscript: Primary Control, Minor or Major Revision, Accepted Manuscript

This journal may invite prominent experts to submit editorials or review papers in special topics, which will be reviewed by editors only. Also commentaries may pass the same way in review process. In cases that concerns arise during review process about statistical test, methodology or techniques applied in research, editor may request independent internal/external experts to comment before final decisions.

As the final point, we strongly suggest authors to observe research and publication ethics in their manuscript, as reporting of any unethical issue during steps of review may lead to the rejection of the work by journal. Also, the authors should consider that they are in the charge of all materials (scientific and ethical) that they provide in their articles.

All of editors and reviewers of this journal do their bests to keep the quality of disseminated scientific works to ensure the solid impact of papers. In this journal, the review process lasts maximum one month.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication of an article in an academic peer-reviewed journal serves several functions, one of which is to validate and preserve the “minutes” of research. It is therefore of immense importance that these “minutes” are accurate and trustworthy. The act of publishing involves many parties, each of which plays an important role in achieving these aims. It therefore follows that the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewer, the publisher and the owner of Society-owned journals have responsibilities to meet expected ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission to publication of an article. 

Nova Journal of Medical and Biological Sciences is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers and authors.

 1. ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS

Publication and authorship

  1. All submitted manuscripts to the HPR are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of researches.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The manuscript acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication.

 Identification of unethical behavior

Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.

Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.

Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

  • An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

  • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or Society as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action. 

 The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Conflict of Interest Policy

A conflict of interest happens when professional judgment concerning the validity of research may be influenced by externals factors like financial gain and personal interests. It may arise for the editor, reviewers or authors of a manuscript submitted for publication to Nova Explore Publications.

External factors may influence the conduct and interpretation of research.

It is important to know about the conflicts of interest the editors, reviewers, and authors in order to make the best decision for the handling of the article during editorial and peer review process. It is also important for the readers of the article to know about any conflict of interest.

Nova Explore Publications recognizes the multiplicity of financial and other conflicts confronting authors, referees, and editors. Nova adopted a policy that does not aim to eliminate conflict but to manage it. The most important element of our policy is that all authors, members, referees, and editors must disclose any association that poses or could be perceived as a financial or intellectual conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.

Authors’ Conflict of Interest

 Authors are required during submission of their manuscripts to disclose any conflict of interest, and to acknowledge all funding sources supporting the work. The corresponding author must ensure that all authors have been asked to disclose any conflicts of interest.

Editors’ Conflict of Interest

When asked to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers and editors must disclose any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. Recent collaborators, defined as people who have coauthored a paper or were a principal investigator on a grant with any of the authors within the past 48 months, must be excluded as editors and reviewers. Referees and editors are asked to recuse themselves from handling a paper if the conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. A referee or editor who has a conflict but believes that it does not preclude his or her making a proper judgment must disclose to the journal the nature of the conflict. 

 Definition of Author Misconduct

Potential Author Misconduct may arise from both submitted manuscripts and published articles. For purposes of this Policy, Author Misconduct may include but is not limited to:

- Fabrication or falsification of data;

- Plagiarism, either of one’s own work, ideas, processes, results, or words, or those of another person;

- Redundant publication of content that overlaps substantially with content already published in print or electronic media;

- Failure to credit an author, including removal of an author without the author’s consent and the consent of other co-authors.

- Inappropriate credit of an author, including adding as a “gift” or “guest” author an individual whose contribution does not meet the Journals’ definition of authorship.*

- Submitting as one’s own work “ghostwritten” manuscripts, where the listed author(s) is unfamiliar with the underlying data and relevant documentation and had minimal or limited input in the development and/or writing of the article;

- Treatment of research subjects in a manner that does not comport with applicable laws or accepted standards of ethics

 Author misconduct does not include honest errors or differences of opinion, which may be managed through the Journals’ errata processes.

 Journal Response to Potential Author Misconduct

1. Notice of Potential Misconduct and Response to Complaining Party

Notification of potential Author Misconduct is immediately referred to the Publisher of the Journal to which the relevant article was submitted or in which it is published. The individual who notifies the Journal of the potential Misconduct will receive acknowledgment that the Journal has received the notice and is reviewing it in accordance with this Policy. The individual who notifies the Journal of the potential Misconduct will generally not be entitled to any further notice or role in the investigation, except in limited circumstances where he or she is affected personally by the potential Misconduct (e.g., his or her work was plagiarized). Notification of potential author misconduct may also arise internally, where a Journal staff member becomes aware of potential Author Misconduct and alerts the Publisher.

2. Author Notification and Investigation

Upon receiving notice of potential Author Misconduct, the Journal will conduct a preliminary investigation of available information concerning the potential Misconduct, which may include additional communication with the individual who notified the Journal of the potential Misconduct, and the reviewers, editors, and staff members responsible for the manuscript or published article. If, upon investigation, the reported behavior appears to constitute Author Misconduct, the Publisher, and the Editor-in-Chief will generally determine that additional investigation is warranted.

The Journal will then notify in writing the corresponding author of the potential Misconduct and ask for an explanation. If no response is received within a reasonable period of time, or the Journal receives an unsatisfactory response, the Journal will contact the corresponding author’s institution and co-authors, as appropriate. If the potential Misconduct implicates work published in an outside Journal, the Editor-in-Chief or the Publisher of the Journal may contact the Editor or Publisher of that Journal. If the potential Misconduct relates to scientific research, the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher of the Journal may ask the institution where the research was conducted to provide study data and other information to establish the legitimacy of reported research results. Throughout this process the Journal will use as reference points algorithms suggested by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which are available online at http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts, and requirements set out by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which are available online at http://www.icmje.org/icjme-recommendations. If at any point during the Journal’s investigation, an author admits to Misconduct or provides a satisfactory explanation, the Journal will conclude its investigation and consider sanctions.

3. Sanctions

If Misconduct is verified or admitted, the Journal may apply sanctions against the author(s) at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher. Sanctions may vary depending upon the severity of the Misconduct, and whether the manuscript in question was submitted or published. Authors will be notified of any sanctions in writing. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to:

- Letter of reprimand to author(s) of a submitted or published manuscript;

- Notice to author’s institution and/or institution where research was conducted;

- Restriction on author(s) publishing in the Journals for a specified period of time; and

- The Journal reserves the right to reject a submitted manuscript, and to retract or publish an erratum or statement of concern about a published article, as appropriate.

Complaint Policy

Nova Explore Publications welcomes complaints as they provide an opportunity for better quality of service, and we aim to respond quickly and solve the problems. Please write your complaint by giving information in detail and send it to this email: support@novaexplore.com
We have a complaint committee include editorial board members and staffs to make a right decision as soon as possible. Our team investigate the complaints and looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.

 

 

Ethical Considerations for Human Subjects

Human subjects

Authors reporting experimental studies on human subjects must include a statement of assurance in the Patients and Methods section of the manuscript reading that. The project was done with consideration of ethical issues and obtaining license from the ethics of their local committee and obtaining the written consent of participants. Also, it was done according to ethical standards of human experimentation in accordance to the Helsinki Declaration (www.cirp.org/library/ethics/helsinki ).

Informed Consent

In the case of research on human subjects, informed consent and other ethical considerations should be mentioned in the "methods" section of the manuscript. The author should include a statement that informed consent was obtained for any experimentation with human subjects. As JNP follows ICMJE, please consider their guideline for more information. In cases where a study involves the use of live animals or human subjects, the author should also include a statement that all experiments were performed in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and also state the institutional committee(s) that has approved the experiments. Moreover, the templates can be seen from WHO.

http://www.icmje.org/

http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html

http://www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/informed_consent/en/

Conflict of Interest: The authors must declare any conflict of interests of contributed authors very briefly in a separate paragraph at the end of the paper. All sources of funding should be declared; unless otherwise the following sentence should be given “Authors declare no conflict of interests”.

To prevent the information on potential conflict of interest for authors from being overlooked or misplaced, mention this information in the cover letter. Authors must identify any potential financial conflicts of interest before the review process begins. Declared conflict of interest will not automatically result in rejection of paper but the editors reserve the right to publish any declared conflict of interest alongside accepted. The following would generally be regarded as potential conflicts of interest:

1. Direct financial payment to an author for the research or manuscript production by the sponsor of a product or service evaluated in an article.

2. Ownership of shares by an author in the company sponsoring a product service evaluated in an article (or in a company sponsoring a competing product).

3. Personal consultant for companies or other organizations with a financial interest in the promotion of particular health care products and services.

Source of Funding: Authors are required to specify the source of funding for their research when submitting a paper. Suppliers of materials should be named and their location (town, state/county, country) included. The information will be disclosed in the Acknowledgements section of the published article.

Copyright Assignment: If your paper is accepted, the author identified as the formal corresponding author for the paper, the corresponding author should study and accept the copyright statement that is available on the journal website.

Acknowledgement: Authors should acknowledge any scientific, technical, statistical and financial supports. Contributors other than coauthors may be very briefly acknowledged in a separate paragraph at the end of the paper. All sources of funding should be declared.

 

Indexing

• doi (Crossref)
• Index Copernicus
• Global Impact Factor (GIF)
• Directory of Research Journals Indexing (DRJI)
• Google Scholar
• Open Academic Journals Index (OAJI)
• CiteFactor
• LOCKSS
• PKP Open Archives Harvester
• Genamics JournalSeek
• J-Gate
• ResearchBib
• ProQuest
• Standard Periodical Directory
• Ulrich's
• WorldCat
• EZB - Electronic Journals Library