Publication Ethics And Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Nowshera Medical College is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to ensuring the integrity and quality of its published content. This statement outlines the ethical guidelines and malpractice policies that all participants in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers—are expected to adhere to.

1. Duties of Authors

1.1 Originality and Plagiarism

  • Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

1.2 Data Access and Retention

  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if possible. Authors must retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

1.3 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

  • Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

1.4 Acknowledgment of Sources

  • Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

1.5 Authorship of the Paper

  • 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. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

1.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

1.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their 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.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1 Publication Decisions

  • The editor of the journal 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 editor 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.

2.2 Fair Play

  • An editor must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

2.3 Confidentiality

  • The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

2.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • 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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

  • Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

3.2 Promptness

  • Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

3.3 Confidentiality

  • Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

3.4 Standards of Objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5 Acknowledgment of Sources

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

3.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.