Publishing Ethics and Misconduct Statement

General Principles

Nasirus Publications upholds international standards of publishing and research ethics. We follow the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and comply with guidelines from the International Society for Research on Medical Autonomy. All participants in the publishing process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—bear ethical responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

Author Responsibilities

Submitted work must represent original research not previously published or under review elsewhere. Authorship credit is limited to those who made substantive intellectual contributions. Financial support, conflicts of interest, or other factors affecting the work must be explicitly disclosed. Authors are expected to revise manuscripts in response to peer feedback and editor recommendations.

Editor Responsibilities

Editorial decisions are based on objective criteria free of discrimination. Editors with conflicts of interest recuse themselves from review. Peer evaluation employs single-blind review: reviewers do not know author identities. Publishing decisions (acceptance, conditional acceptance, or rejection) are communicated transparently with explanatory feedback.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments. Reviews are based on scientific merit, not personal opinion. Reviewers disclose conflicts of interest and may decline assignments promptly if unable to meet deadlines. Reviewer identity remains confidential and is disclosed to authors only with reviewer consent.

Plagiarism, Duplicate Submission, and Data Fabrication

Plagiarism—presenting another's words, ideas, or findings as one's own—is prohibited. Paraphrases and quotations require attribution. Duplicate submission and salami slicing (redundant publication of the same data) are unacceptable. Data fabrication or selective reporting is a serious breach; manuscripts exhibiting such misconduct are rejected or retracted if discovered post-publication. All submissions are screened with plagiarism detection software.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose financial, personal, or institutional relationships that could influence the work. Relevant disclosures include grants, institutional affiliations, and advisory roles. Editors and reviewers likewise declare potential conflicts before participating in publishing decisions.

Appeals and Complaints Procedure

Authors may lodge written complaints regarding ethical violations or methodological concerns in published work. Complaints must include evidence and contact information. The editor acknowledges receipt within ten working days and initiates an investigation. The process is confidential. Upon conclusion, the editor notifies all parties and proposes resolution. Confirmed serious misconduct may result in retraction.

Corrections, Preprints, and Retraction

When significant errors are discovered in published work, authors may request a formal correction (erratum). Corrections are noted in the original publication and digital versions. Retraction occurs when work exhibits serious misconduct or scientific integrity violations. Retraction may be initiated by the author, editor, or reviewer. The decision is made after soliciting input from relevant parties and is publicly announced.

Notification and Correspondence

All ethics inquiries should be submitted in writing to [email protected]. Submissions must include the manuscript number (if applicable), author name, specific allegations, and supporting evidence. The editor will respond within 15 working days.