Materia Socio-Medica journal (Mater Sociomed) follows guidelines from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Sarajevo Declaration of Integrity and Visibility Scholarly Publishing in facing all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. Materia Socio-Medica adopts COPE principle to meet high quality standard of ethics for publisher, editors, authors, and reviewers. As an essential issue, publication ethics need to be explained clearly to improve the quality of research worldwide. In this part, we explain the ethical responsibilities applied for authors, editors, and reviewers. Researches in medicine can be different: laboratory research, clinical research, research in the field of public health. All three types of these scientific researches are important for the well-being and well-being of the community, as well as its individual. They are essential for improving clinical and socio-medical practices, whether of a strategic, tactical or operational nature, and for implementation through institutions implementing their policies aimed at identifying health problems and/or improving methods to promote health and prevent disability, disseminating scientific literature foundation for future scientific research, policies and practices. For the scientist personally, it represents the acquisition of new knowledge from the systematic study of topics, and the development and improvement of new current skills applicable in practice. In the past decades, science and technology have taken precedence in the development of modern society and scientific research. In any case, it is imperative to respect ethical principles, rules and principles in the implementation of any research, because only in this way can adequate answers be reached to many questions that today affect humans individually, but the world's population globally, if it is happening right now. The production and exchange of knowledge on important issues of human existence determine the relevant communication among scientists locally and globally through published articles, books, presented at scientific conferences and similar. In principle, every researcher should primarily have the role of contributing to the development of the professional community to which they belong, but this also opens the door for eventual personal advancement in their academic and scientific career.
Reviewers hold a critical role in maintaining the quality of paper published in our journals. Prior to publication, each submitted manuscript should undergo a peer-review process by ideally two independent reviewers, invited by the editors based on their expertise suitability and professional track record in the subject area of the manuscript. Once reviewers are appointed, they are bind to the following ethical responsibilities:
For all type of submission. Authors must indicate whether or not there is a financial relationship between them and the organization that sponsored the research. This note should be added in a separate section previous to the reference list. If no conflict exists, authors should state so. See the details in Instruction to Authors.
Conflict of interest may also emerge during the manuscript evaluation that may disrupt the fair play process. To anticipate, editors are prevented from handling manuscripts whose authors are from the same institution with them, or by research collaborators, or co-authors, or competitors. In such case, another editor will be appointed to handle the manuscript.
Similarly with the reviewers who are obliged to retain themselves from evaluating manuscripts authored by individuals from their own institution, or by research collaborators, or co-authors, or competitors. Reviewers should promptly notify handling editor on the possible conflict of interest and return the manuscript.
Researches in medicine can be different: laboratory research, clinical research, research in the field of public health. All three types of these scientific researches are important for the well-being and well-being of the community, as well as its individual. They are essential for improving clinical and socio-medical practices, whether of a strategic, tactical or operational nature, and for implementation through institutions implementing their policies aimed at identifying health problems and/or improving methods to promote health and prevent disability, disseminating scientific literature foundation for future scientific research, policies and practices. For the scientist personally, it represents the acquisition of new knowledge from the systematic study of topics, and the development and improvement of new current skills applicable in practice. In the past decades, science and technology have taken precedence in the development of modern society and scientific research. In any case, it is imperative to respect ethical principles, rules and principles in the implementation of any research, because only in this way can adequate answers be reached to many questions that today affect humans individually, but the world's population globally, if it is happening right now. The production and exchange of knowledge on important issues of human existence determine the relevant communication among scientists locally and globally through published articles, books, presented at scientific conferences and similar. In principle, every researcher should primarily have the role of contributing to the development of the professional community to which they belong, but this also opens the door for eventual personal advancement in their academic and scientific career.
Any experiment involving human or animal subjects is required to obtain the ethical clearance from the institutional review board or ethics committee prior to the experiment. Infringement to this policy may be regarded as research misconduct.
All human studies should have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements.
Reviewers and editors are advised to refer to the ARRIVE checklist when assessing manuscript reporting experiments using animal models. When using animal model in experiments, authors should comply with commonly-accepted '3Rs': (1) Replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible; (2) Reduction in number of animals used; And (3) refinement of experimental conditions and procedures to minimize the harm to animals. During the experiment, authors are advised to refer to the following international guidelines:
It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyright holder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyright holder).
Permission is required for:
Even after the publication of a large number of articles on this clinical relevance in serious scientific journals, and there are hundreds of thousands of them stored in world scientific databases, only a relatively small number of articles lead to a current change in health status or clinical practice. Regardless of what has been said, researchers can in principle enjoy the fruits of their work through:
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Manuscript containing materials from other publications without permission cannot be published in Materia Socio-Medica .
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
Publication misconducts include data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship. These terms are defined as follows:
Terms | Definition |
Fabrication | Any activity involving the creation of false information about non-existing data or findings. |
Falsification | Artificial manipulation of the research materials/equipment/process or random modification/deletion of data resulting in misleading interpretation. |
Plagiarism | Any activity of pirating others’ ideas, research contents, and research results without obtaining justifiable approvals or giving proper credits. |
Improper authorship | Inclusion of a person as an author who has contributed inadequately to research or manuscript writing. |
Editors, in collaboration with reviewers, maintained the accuracy and integrity of the contents published in the journal. In addressing the misconduct allegation, editors will follow the COPE guidelines including investigation to the allegation. During the editorial or peer-review process, manuscript proven to commit the misconducts will be rejected. During post-publication, editors should retract papers proven to commit such misconducts by releasing a notification indicating the paper has been retracted along with the investigation results. Other sanction for committing scientific misconduct is the restriction from publishing in Materia Socio-Medica for a certain period of time the editorial board and the journal.
Any allegation will be entertained by the editorial board and investigated for validity, including its consistency with the definition of research misconduct. Investigation is also extended to seek possible presence of conflicts of interest from the individual(s) reporting the allegation.
If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.
Institutions authors have affiliation with should perform their own investigation on the allegations of scientific misconduct. The responsibility of maintaining and guaranteeing the accuracy of the scientific contents of published articles is shared among the authors, journals, and institutions. Actions taken by the journal includes corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions of the alleged article. Through this action, Materia Socio-Medica continues to uphold the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
Structure form of the abstract
As proposed in this document, scientific articles in almost all cases need to have the following structure: Abstract with defined and structured parts: Background, Objective, Methods, Results and Discussion, and for didactic reasons the BOMRAD acronym is used. The same structured form must be, also, followed in the full text (13):
B – Background
O – Objective
M – Methods (Methods and/or Materials)
R – Results
A – and
D – Discussion, and Conclusion
Title
The title of the article should be as short and clear as possible in describing the content of the article. We can say that the title is a summary of the abstract (11, 13). The title should accurately describe the content of the article. There are two types of titles: Indicative title - talks about the work that covers and informative title - conveys the message of the article and recommended for beginners. A good title should be (a) Short, (b) Correct, (c) Clear, (d) Complete, (e) Informative, and (d) Attractive (11). It should also include: characteristics of the article, showing what is most important in the work, the same terms as in BOMRAD should be used without abbreviations, and sometimes in the form of a question (13).
Name(s) of the authors and their institutions
It is necessary to specify the names and surnames (full texts) of the authors and co-authors who participated in the editing of the article, and also their affiliations. Instructions of the journal to which the article is submitted must be respected (instructions for authors). This is very important for articles that prefer to be published in journals deposited in the PubMed Central database.
Full text of the Abstract
Abstract/Summary and Title can be written in two forms: Reference and Information. It can be written in the author’s native language and English. The structure of the Abstract/Summary should look like this: Background, Objective, Methods, Results and Conclusion, or: Introduction, Aim, Methods, Results and Discussion, and Conclusion (for original articles, while other articles, like reviews, case reports, case studies, etc., may follow different structure) (Figure 1) (11). In the Methods section, the authors should describe the study sample and outcomes. Abstract or Summary is the distillate of which will be presented and should show: what has been done, what are the results, what the results mean. The abstract is a summary of the article and is placed at the beginning of the text. This summary is usually without value judgment, interpretation or criticism and may also contain bibliographic references that refer to the original document. An abstract can be descriptive or informative. It helps the reader to choose to read the entire article while providing them the information to become familiar with key elements of the text without going into too much detail (11, 13).
Background/Introduction
An introduction is part of the article with a list of already known facts presented in order to inform readers on the topic and research issues and provide a basis from which the discussion is written later in the article. Writing an introduction has its own rules: a clear definition of the problem, why exactly the chosen issue was studied, while there is no need to explain what can be found in the textbooks (11).
Objective/Aim
In this part of the article must be described the (or aims) of the study clearly explained what author(s) define which outcomes of the research/investigation they expected to receive.
Materials and Methods
In the materials and methods all the elements and the manner of conducting the research are presented. Materials (Patients) and Methods describe how the study was conducted and what are the characteristics of the sample (experimental group, controls and their properties). It is necessary to explain what is researched, asked and tested as follows: sampling (random, consecutive, and representative), the sample size, patient gender, age and the criteria for exclusion from the study, as well as control group - if any. It should describe how the research was done: type of study (prospective, retrospective or combined), data collection (surveys, inventory or check-up), the technique of measuring results (operative treatment, laboratory tests). It is necessary to specify where the research was conducted and its duration.
Results
Results are an important part of writing an article (11). The research results are usually most carefully read and should be a detailed plan, well-documented and comprehensive. Results are the most important part of scientific research. Consequently, it is essential that both graphical and text representations of results are provided. Results can be displayed in tables or figures, according to authors' preferences, while presenting the same authors should avoid the presentation of data in tabular and chart format. It is essential that the relevant facts are highlighted and clearly displayed. It is not acceptable that the reader wanders through the figures and charts without being able to get a clear picture of the importance of the presented results.
Discussion
Discussion is a critical review of the data described in the results. The results should be compared with other findings and discuss the theoretical and practical research outcome (11).
Conclusion
The conclusion seems to the logical sequence of the previous two sections and it does not recount results, but combines them in a clear and understandable context. The conclusion should be short, clear and precise. It is necessary to write the final statement of what logically follows from the results of the work, list only the most important and give the message. Good conclusions should not surprise the attentive reader.
The list of references used
In scientific circles, the reference is the information that is necessary to the reader in identifying and finding sources used (19). The basic rule when listing the sources used is that references must be accurate, complete and should be consistently applied. On the other hand, quoting implies verbatim was written or verbal repetition of parts of the text or words written by others that can be checked in the original text (4, 19).
Finally, an article should be prepared for publication, and there are a number of reasons why researchers should publish. Some of them are:
First of all, before writing their articles in the form for submitting on web site of the journal, authors need to read and follow Instructions for authors, which every journal has on web site, and also, in printing form (in every issue or at least in the first issue of the volume). The article must be prepared following recommendations in the template, also, deposited on web site of the journal. Instructions and templates are designed according to the rules of ICMJE, COPE and EASE.
The concept and significance of the review
Publishing the results of scientific research is a key phase of scientific activity and the standard way to do this is to publish an article in a reputable scientific journal. Of course, this is preceded by an assessment and review of such contributions, regardless of the thematic area to which they belong. A review is an expert‘s opinion which means to carefully review (show peer review) and is an independent criterion, i.e., the reviewer itself is not related with any specific scientific work or with the authors of the publication. Review is one of the main forms of informing about the content of a certain text, taking a critical attitude towards it. It is characteristic of a review that it does not unconditionally strive to present all the important contents of the document and it does not have to be short. The main purpose of the review is „assessment of originality and scientific acceptability, and verification of citations from the literature with regard to relevance, recentness and adequacy“. When reviewing the article, the language or style in which the article was written must not be neglected.
The following are important for the scientific significance of the article: a) Does the author show knowledge of current events in practice?; b) Are the research process and process in line with professional standards?; c) Does the author offer original arguments and provide valid facts for his research work?
If the article does not meet all the criteria, reviewers suggest a revision that will correct the article before accepting it. In general, peer review is a series of procedures in evaluating the creative work or research results of other authors, working in the same or a related field, with the aim of maintaining and improving the quality of work or applying the results in practice. Reviewers do identify values and point out mistakes so that someone’s work gets a chance to be published. Reviewers evaluate which work will be published in more or less prestigious publications and evaluate those works accordingly, which is important as a recommendation for advancement in an academic career, but also for improving the social status of the author himself. Reviews, often with good reason, are the subject of critical remarks, especially because they can sometimes slow down the process of publishing someone’s results, which is a particular handicap when it comes to contributions to prestigious journals. Equally important is the role of evaluating the articles received by the reviewers of a particular journal. Namely, the review procedure plays a key role in checking the methodological correctness, interpretation and conclusions of the research results described in the articles. The next function of the journal is the protection of the intellectual property of the author, its presentation to the scientific community, i.e., providing a way to gain professional recognition and advancement. Today, scientific journals have a significant role in the implementation of scientific policy, i.e., decision-making in science, because review opinions give a particular journal a rating that can influence decisions on financial support for scientific projects, ranking of academic and scientific institutions, and academic advancement of individuals. Zwemer (1970) lists seven criteria for assessing journal quality: a) high standards for manuscript acceptance; b) a representative editorial board with appropriate representation of individual disciplines; c) critical review process; d) regularity of publication; e) indexation in main databases; f) a high degree of trust in the published content by the reader; h) high frequency of citations by other journals.
The review consists of two main parts - one is intended for the editor and the other for the author. Assessors receive special forms from most editors in which the grades of individual aspects of the attached article are entered. „Manuscripts of articles are subject to professional, linguistic and editorial review in terms of general professional and journalistic norms of the journal. The manuscript of the article will be accepted for publication on the basis of favorable reviews. These forms should certainly be filled out carefully“. In addition, there is usually one blank page for comments to the editor, and one or more blank pages on which comments to the author are written. No part of the review should be written by hand, as due to illegibility some important remarks may go unnoticed or be ignored.
Despite its shortcomings, review is still an indispensable part of scientific publication. It is useful not only to the editors of the journal and the authors of the articles, but also to the reviewers themselves. Reviewers receive the privilege of insight into the latest research and as yet unpublished results of colleagues working in their field of work. By reviewing, they hone the skill of critical appraisal of scientific articles, which can also be useful in their own professional work and training.
What is a review for?
A good review, one that essentially delves into the depth of the research, and is itself clear, significantly increases the scientific value of the publication being evaluated. The reviewer has the role and task of an educator and in principle his remarks and comments enrich the author's knowledge and ability to conduct research and interpret the results of that research. However, the review process also has many imperfections and flaws. The subjectivity of the reviewer's assessment is in the first-place errors in the assessment of the quality of work. Critics claim that the review process is slow, expensive, biased and subject to abuse. However, the fact is that without reviewing articles, editors would not be able to edit journals, because review is the backbone of editorial work, and publishing articles is the basis for gathering human knowledge. So, the one who wants to publish the results of his scientific research must automatically accept to be a reviewer to an author. Reviewing is also an opportunity for learning, it is a source of the latest information, but it is also a challenging and stressful job, but it definitely increases the reviewer's knowledge and information, for most it represents the pleasure and beauty. In addition to the privilege of having the reviewer the opportunity to read some scientific facts before all other readers from as yet unpublished results of colleagues in his field, he also increases his skill of critical appraisal of scientific articles, which can be useful in his professional work and training. In order for a review to be well done and written, the reviewer must be able to evaluate the work objectively, even if he does not like the work personally. In order to achieve this, the evaluation rules and the legality of the evaluation must be respected.
In order for the reviewer's opinion to be of good quality, the following should be observed when evaluating the text: a) responsibility - which means that the evaluator should have a clear sense of responsibility towards his colleagues and make the evaluation on time, honestly and as best he can. You should leave your personal impression to yourself, and write a review realistically and objectively. The quality of the article's evaluation is determined by the general evaluator's responsibility for the work he/she does; b) knowledge of literature - the reviewer should be well acquainted with the relevant literature and be able to apply general scientific research principles related to the content of the work being evaluated and place the article in the context of previous articles in this field. The reviewer should carefully study the instructions for the authors of the journal for which he is evaluating the articles. c) time - it depends on the complexity of the opinion to be written and contains a comparison of the correspondence of the topic and the content of the text with the expertise of the reviewer. It should not be longer than a few hours, but for vaguely written articles probably much longer. d) knowledge of the journal for which it is evaluated - scientific journals differ in editorial policy, priorities in publishing and the percentage of rejected papers, which a good reviewer should know and keep in mind when writing a review. Even, if it is necessary to recommend to the authors a suitable journal if in his opinion, he came to the conclusion that the text he evaluated is not adequate for the journal in which the paper has already been applied.
The review work is very responsible and delicate, because it is the basis of the editorial board's decision to publish the article. With their suggestions and evaluations, reviewers significantly contribute to the quality of work. The reviewer should answer a few key questions:
As a rule, each article must be: a) Scientifically acceptable (methodology, presentation of results, discussion, citation); b) Documentary acceptable (quality of tables and figures, statistical processing); c) Linguistically acceptable (comprehensibility of the text, correctness of terminology, stylistic and orthographic arrangement); d) Formally acceptable (whether the title of the article corresponds to the content, whether the manuscript is composed according to the propositions of the journal, whether it contains all the required parts, etc.). All editions of better medical journals send reviewers forms, which they must fill out.
Procedure and method of article review
In the first reading, the reviewer should try to understand the article and ask questions related to the observed ambiguities. The first reading is like triage - the reviewer after the first reading makes a decision about the importance and relevance of the research. The reading goes in the order in which the article is composed: Reading the abstract instructs the reviewer to pay attention to reading the full text, especially related to research settings, procedures, results and conclusions. The reviewer then focuses on what is the key scientific research problem the article is writing about and what its messages are. In the second reading, the reviewer, after a few hours or days (depending on the time available for reading), evaluates the values of the article by checking the questions and remarks that the reviewer recorded during the first reading. The reviewer applies the principle - whatever the reviewer does not understand, the readers will not understand, so the reviewer should be free to object to anything that hinders him in reading and understanding the article. One should not criticize the general style of the article, one should not correct errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation (this is the job of a proofreader), but one can suggest a general assessment of the linguistic quality of the work to the editor. The second criterion is the assessment of the scientific quality of the article, and the strength of the quality of thinking and respect for scientific principles and knowledge in the field from which the article is. Finally, the reviewer gives their expert opinion and presents an opinion for assessing the weight of the research procedures, data and conclusions. Only the article that is scientifically strong and really brings some new knowledge in the field of science from which the content of the article comes is important. The value of the article is not assessed according to whether it is from the field of basic medical research or the clinical or public health character of the research, but whether it is clinically attractive and whether part of what is concluded can be applied in practice and be socially useful.
Sources of scientific information, then methods for their evaluation and methodology of their use are key elements for more serious scientific research and their publication. Society determines the rules of conduct and the rules of the game for scientific activity; however, scientific cognition still depends on procedures that, at least in the initial phase, rely on the individual researcher, and this largely depends on the creativity, skills and individual talents. Creativity and critical thinking are just some of the essential characteristics of the scientific-research process, and a distinction should be made between those of a scientific and those of a professional nature. Scientific researchers in the field of medicine communicate with each other through published articles or through presentations that are published at scientific and professional conferences. Research not published in a publication that makes the results available for reading and application cannot affect practices that can make people healthier. This is one of the key reasons that scientists are encouraged, especially young people, to publish their work in a scientific or professional journal, visible in bibliographic and index databases, or through academic platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu.
