Masoud Amiri, Ph.D. in Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
Zaher Khazaei, M.SC in Epidemiology, Nahavand, Nursing Faculty, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Salman Khazaei, PhD in Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
Masoume Mousavi, PhD in Epidemiology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences - School of Public Health
All persons have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in investigations have, the right to decide what happens to the personal data gathered, to what they have said during an investigation or an interview, and also to any photograph that was taken.
Therefore it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the investigation. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication.
You can use the below form to obtain consent for publication from the participant.
I …………………………….………………….... [Name] give my consent for information about myself/my child or ward/my relative (circle as appropriate) to be published in …………………………………………………………………………
[The journal of parathyroid disease, manuscript number and corresponding author].
I understand that the information will be published without my/my child or ward’s/my relative’s (circle as appropriate) name attached, but that full anonymity cannot be guaranteed.
I understand that the text and any pictures or videos published in the article will be freely available on the internet and may be seen by the general public. The pictures, videos and text may also appear on other websites or in print, may be translated into other languages or used for commercial purposes.
I have been offered the opportunity to read the manuscript.
Signing this consent form does not remove my rights to privacy.
Please keep this consent form in the patient’s case files. The manuscript reporting this patient’s details should state that ‘Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/ relative of the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the editor of this journal.
Articles should be published with statements or supporting documents, such as the ICMJE conflict of interest form, declaring:
To support the above statements, editors may request that authors of a study sponsored by a funder with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as “I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.”
Editorial Policies Adopted by Scholarly Journals Published by Nickan Research Institute
[Please also follow at publisher’s website: http://www.nickanrescorp.com ]
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data.
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their coauthors. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding, the gathering of data, technical help, writing assistance, and general supervision of the research group does not warrant authorship. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. Please guarantee that anyone stated in the Acknowledgements section has granted its clearance for permission to be listed.
A contributorship statement is required for every manuscript submitted and should state who has contributed what to the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article.
Recognize individuals who provided assistance to the project. Report all sources of grant and other support for the project or study, including funds received from contributors, institutions and commercial sources. Consultancies and funds paid directly to investigators must also be listed.
Any change in authorship (i.e., order, addition, and deletion of authors) after initial submission must be approved by all authors. Authors should determine the order of authorship among themselves. In addition, any alterations must be clarified to the Editor/Editor-in-chief.
A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain - employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert- testimony or personal relationship). There is nothing unethical about a competing interest but it should be acknowledged and clearly stated. All authors must declare all competing interests in their covering letter and in “Competing Interests” section at the end of the manuscript file (before the references). Authors with no competing interests to declare should obviously state that.
The policy of Nickan Research Institute is that none of the editors should have any financial relationship with any biomedical company.
Ethical approval of research/Publication Ethics
We strongly consider allegations of publication misconduct, both before and after publication, and we reserve the right to contact authors' institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies if needed. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct, we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include supplying a correction or retraction.
Authors are expected to be aware of publication ethics, specifically with regard to authorship, dual submission, plagiarism, figure manipulation, competing interests, and compliance with standards of research ethics. In cases of suspected misconduct, we will follow COPE standards and practices and may seek advice from the COPE forum if needed.
Statement of ethics approval
We require every research article submitted to include a statement that the study obtained ethics approval (or a statement that it was not required and why), including the name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s), the number/ID of the approval(s), and a statement that participants gave informed consent before taking part. Even when a study has been approved by a research ethics committee or institutional review board, editors may ask authors for more detailed information about the ethics of the work.
Patient consent and confidentiality
Any article that contains personal medical information about an identifiable living individual requires the patient’s explicit consent before we can publish it. We would like the patient to sign our consent form, which requires the patient to have read the article.
If consent cannot be obtained because the patient cannot be traced then publication will be possible only if the information can be sufficiently anonymized. Anonymisation means that neither the patient nor anyone else could identify the patient with certainty.
If the patient is dead the authors should seek permission from a relative (as a matter of courtesy and medical ethics). If the relatives are not contactable we will balance the worthwhileness of the case, the likelihood of identification, and the likelihood of offence if identified in making a decision on whether we should publish without a relative’s consent.
Our policy on obtaining consent for publication of pictures of patients is a subset of our general policy on patient confidentiality. If there is any chance that a patient may be identified from a photograph or other image or from its legend or accompanying text we need the patient’s written consent to publication by Nickan Research Institute.
Images – such as X- rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, pathology slides, or images of undistinctive parts of the body – may be used without consent so long as they are anonymized by the removal of any identifying marks and are not accompanied by text that could reveal the patient’s identity through clinical or personal detail.
Research reporting guidelines
Authors are encouraged to use the relevant research reporting guidelines for the study type provided by the EQUATOR Network. This will ensure that you provide enough information for editors, peer reviewers and readers to understand how the research was performed and to judge whether the findings are likely to be reliable.
The key reporting guidelines are:
Clinical trial registration
Based on ICMJE recommendations, a clinical trial defines as “any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome”.
In agreement with the ICMJE , journals published by Nickan Research Institute will not consider reports of clinical trials unless they were registered prospectively before recruitment of any participants.
As a condition of consideration for publication, journals published by Nickan Research Institute require registration of all trials in a public trials registry that is acceptable to the ICMJE (any registry that is a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform www.who.int/ictrp /network/primary/en/index.html or in ClinicalTrials.gov, which is a data provider to the WHO ICTRP).
Journals published by Nickan Research Institute use iThenticate software, which is a plagiarism detector service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines.
Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we reserve the right to issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate. We reserve the right to inform authors' institutions about plagiarism detected either before or after publication.
Peer review policy
Journals from Nickan Research Institute review all manuscript submissions, internally or externally.
Original research articles authored by a member of a journal’s editorial team are independently peer reviewed; an editor will have no input or influence on the peer review process or publication decision for their own article. Editorials and obituaries written by the journal’s editor do not undergo external peer review.
All manuscripts submitted to Nickan Research Institute journals are subject to rigorous review. This review consists of the following steps:
1. Initial submissions are reviewed by internal staff to ensure adherence to policies of Nickan Research Institute, including ethical requirements for human and animal experimentation.
2. Submissions are then assigned to an Editor for evaluation.
3. The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. The majority of submissions are evaluated by two external reviewers, but it is up to the Editor to determine the number of reviews required.
4. After evaluation, the Editor chooses between the following decisions:
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
5. If the decision is Minor Revision or Major Revision, authors have 30 days to resubmit the revised manuscript. Authors may contact email address if they require an extension.
6. Upon resubmission, the Editor may choose to send the manuscript back to external reviewers, or may render a decision based on personal expertise.
It is the author’s responsibility to secure all permissions prior to publication.
Material from other sources
Any written or illustrative material that has been or will be published elsewhere must be duly acknowledged and accompanied by the written consent of the copyright holder (this may be the publisher rather than the author). This includes your own previously published material, if you are not the copyright holder.
Reproducing material published by Nickan Research Institute
Materials published by Nickan Research Institute may be reproduced in full or part in any medium or language only on the condition that the original material is cited properly.
The publication frequency and all related information regarding the journals are listed on their website.
Copyright and licensing
Open access agreement
Upon submitting an article, authors are asked to indicate their agreement to abide by an open access Creative Commons license (CC-BY). Under the terms of this license, authors retain ownership of the copyright of their articles. However, the license permits any user to download, print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work. The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Peer Review Process in Journals of Nickan Research Institute (NRI)
Journals of NRI accept manuscripts report novel findings, which could result in impacts on biomedical 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.
Technical editor checks the format and style of manuscript prior to review process to assure its compatibility with Journals’ 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 Journals of NRI, 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. While Journals of NRI are, 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 ePublished. 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 issue of journals, related to NRI
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 utilizing Track Changes in Review menu of 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. Editor may/may not request the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript beside cover letter and a marked copy. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.
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 the manuscript does not meet the scopes of our journals, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.
NRI 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 Journals of NRI. 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 NRI do their utmost to keep the quality of disseminated scientific works to ensure the solid impact of papers on biomedical fields. In NRI, the review process lasts maximum one month.