•  
  •  
 

Policies and Ethics

Contents

Iraqi Postgraduate Medical Journal (IPMJ) and its Editorial Board are fully committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. The journal:

These policies guide all aspects of the editorial process, including manuscript evaluation, peer review, decision-making, and post-publication practices.

Who Can Submit

IPMJ accepts original manuscripts from authors who:

  • Hold the copyright to the submitted work, OR
  • Are authorized by the copyright holder(s) to submit the manuscript

Open Access Policy

IPMJ is a fully open-access journal. All published articles are freely available online immediately upon publication, with no subscription fees or access barriers.

To help cover the costs of open access publishing, an article processing charge (APC) is applied to accepted articles. Details are available on the Author Guidelines page.

Copyright Policy

Authors retain copyright of their work, granting the journal the right to publish and distribute it. Articles are published under an open access license, as detailed below, to promote broad access and distribution while ensuring proper credit to the authors.

Licensing

IPMJ applies the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to all published articles. Under this license the users can:

  • Share: Copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt: Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercially

Requirements:

  • Appropriate credit must be given to the original author(s)
  • A link to the license must be provided
  • Any changes made must be indicated

Users may:

  • Read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts
  • Use articles for any lawful purpose
  • Mine the data and content for text and data analysis

Authorship

Authorship Criteria

All individuals listed as authors must meet ALL of the following criteria:

  1. Made substantial contribution to:
    • Conception or design of the work, OR
    • Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data
  2. Drafted the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content
  3. Agreed on the journal to which the manuscript is submitted
  4. Reviewed and approved all versions of the manuscript, including:
    • Submitted version
    • Revised versions
    • Final accepted version
    • Any changes introduced at proof stage
  5. Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to address questions related to accuracy or integrity

Note: Participation limited solely to funding acquisition, data collection, or general supervision does not qualify for authorship.

Author Order

  • Authorship order should reflect the relative contribution of each contributor
  • Once a manuscript is submitted, changes to author order require written consent from all authors
  • The journal may set limits on the number of authors depending on manuscript type; justification is required if limits are exceeded

Author Contribution Statement

Authors must provide a detailed description of each contributor's role, which may include:

  • Concept and design
  • Literature search
  • Clinical or experimental studies
  • Data acquisition and analysis
  • Statistical analysis
  • Manuscript preparation, editing, and review

One or more authors should be designated as guarantors, taking responsibility for the integrity of the work from inception to publication.

Example statement:

"All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by [full name], [full name] and [full name]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [full name] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

Changes in Authorship

Any change in authorship—before or after publication—must be approved by all authors, including those being added or removed.

Requirements:

  • The corresponding author must obtain written confirmation from all co-authors
  • A clear justification for the requested change must be provided

Post-publication changes:

  • Addressed through a formal post-publication notice
  • Requests for substantial authorship changes after acceptance may be rejected if sufficient justification and evidence of contribution are not provided

Note: A change in institutional affiliation alone does not constitute valid grounds for author removal if the author otherwise meets authorship criteria.

Plagiarism Detection

To uphold publication ethics, all submissions are screened using iThenticate plagiarism detection software prior to peer review.

Similarity Threshold: While a general guideline of 20–% or less is considered, the editorial office evaluates the nature and extent of overlap on a case-by-case basis. Manuscripts exceeding this threshold that demonstrate unethical overlap will be either:

  • Returned to authors for revision (20–30% similarity with proper citations)
  • Rejected without review (>30% similarity or evidence of unethical duplication)

Note: Preprint versions of manuscripts deposited in recognized preprint servers are not regarded as prior publication and will not affect the similarity assessment.

Preprints Policy

Authors may share their preprint anywhere at any time. Preprint deposition does not constitute prior publication.

Upon acceptance for publication:

  • Authors are encouraged to link from the preprint to the formal publication via its DOI
  • Authors may update their preprints on arXiv, RePEc, or other platforms with the accepted manuscript

Peer Review Process

Overview

All manuscripts submitted to IPMJ undergo rigorous peer review and must meet established standards of academic excellence and ethical integrity.

Editorial Screening

Initial Assessment: All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editorial Office to ensure:

  • Completeness of submission
  • Adherence to formatting requirements
  • Compliance with ethical policies
  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Basic quality standards

Desk Rejection: Manuscripts may be rejected without external peer review at this stage for:

  • Subject matter outside journal scope
  • Evidence of publication ethics violations
  • Plagiarism exceeding 20% similarity threshold (See the Plagiarism Detection section in Policies and Ethics for more details.)
  • Insufficient scientific impact or contribution
  • Significant flaws in study design or methodology
  • Unclear or inadequately defined objectives
  • Missing essential manuscript components
  • Serious deficiencies in language, clarity, or academic writing quality
  • Failure to comply with submission guidelines

Editorial Evaluation Manuscripts passing initial screening are reviewed by the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief to determine:

  • Scientific soundness
  • Relevance to journal scope
  • Overall priority for publication

The Editor-in-Chief may reject manuscripts at this stage due to insufficient scientific merit, lack of priority, or inadequate language quality.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are sent for double-blind peer review:

  • Two independent reviewers are assigned to each manuscript
  • Author identities remain anonymous to reviewers
  • Reviewer identities remain anonymous to authors

Review Timeline

IPMJ is committed to an efficient editorial workflow:

  • Initial editorial decision: Approximately 7–14 days from submission
  • Peer review completion: 4–6 weeks from assignment to reviewers
  • Final acceptance decision: Typically 45–60 days from initial submission (for manuscripts requiring revision)
  • Publication: Articles are published in the next available issue after acceptance

Editorial Decision Process

Standard Review:

  • If both reviewers recommend acceptance or revision: editorial decision follows their recommendations
  • If reviewers' recommendations conflict (e.g., one acceptance, one rejection): manuscript is sent to a third independent reviewer
  • Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on collective reviewer recommendations

Additional Review Procedures:

The Research Integrity team may seek expert consultation beyond standard peer review for submissions with serious:

  • Ethical implications
  • Security implications
  • Biosecurity implications
  • Societal implications

Possible actions include:

  • Consulting external experts before decisions
  • Recruiting reviewers with specialized expertise
  • Assessment by additional editors
  • Declining further consideration of the submission

Decision Outcomes

Manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: Manuscript accepted as submitted (rare)
  • Minor Revision: Small changes required; re-review not necessary
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes required; manuscript will be re-reviewed
  • Reject and Resubmit: Manuscript shows promise but requires fundamental changes; treated as new submission if resubmitted
  • Reject: Manuscript does not meet journal standards or scope

Revised Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit revised manuscripts within one month of receiving the editorial decision.

Requirements for resubmission:

  • Response to reviewers: Point-by-point response addressing all reviewer and editor comments
  • Revised manuscript with track changes: Document showing all changes made
  • Clean revised manuscript: Final version without tracked changes

Upload all documents through the online Manuscript Tracking System.

Note: Revision does not guarantee acceptance. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated or sent for additional review.

Acceptance Rate

The journal maintains an acceptance rate of approximately 60–70%, reflecting a balance between rigorous peer review and supportive academic development.

Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to IPMJ are treated as confidential. Information relating to a submission is disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer-review process.

Confidentiality applies to:

  • Manuscript content and data
  • Author identities (in double-blind review)
  • Reviewer identities
  • Editorial discussions and decisions

Exceptions:

In cases of suspected research or publication misconduct, relevant materials may be disclosed to:

  • Ethics committees
  • Affiliated institutions
  • Appropriate authorities (solely for investigation and resolution purposes)

All confidentiality matters are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines and flowcharts.

Editorial and Review Ethics

Responsibilities of Editors

Publication Decisions:

  • The editorial board decides which submitted articles merit publication
  • Decisions are made through board consultation and reviewer recommendations
  • Decisions comply with legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism
  • Decisions are based solely on academic merit
  • Author nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion do not influence decisions

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest:

  • Editors maintain strict confidentiality during the review process
  • Manuscript information may only be shared with: corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and editorial advisers
  • Unpublished materials in manuscripts cannot be used in an editor's or reviewer's own research without express written consent from the author
  • Readers are informed about research funding sources and any funder involvement in research or publication

Relations with Authors:

  • Editors ensure peer review is fair, unbiased, and timely
  • Specific policies exist for handling submissions from editorial board members to prevent bias
  • Authorship section of this page provides clear authorship criteria

Relations with Reviewers:

  • Reviewers are encouraged to identify ethical concerns and potential misconduct, including:
    • Unethical research design
    • Inappropriate data manipulation
    • Redundant publication
    • Plagiarism
  • Reviewer comments are shared with authors in full (except offensive or libelous content)
  • Reviewer contributions are regularly acknowledged
  • Reviewers who consistently provide discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews are discontinued

Quality Assurance:

  • Editors ensure publication quality across all journal sections
  • Editors seek assurance that research has received appropriate ethics approval (research ethics committee, institutional review board)
  • Editors monitor intellectual property issues and collaborate with publishers to address legal breaches
  • Errors, inaccuracies, or misleading statements are corrected promptly and prominently

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

  • Reviewers provide expert, independent, and objective evaluations
  • Reviews must be conducted fairly and constructively
  • Observations should be presented clearly with supporting scientific reasoning
  • Comments should help authors improve quality, clarity, and scientific rigor
  • Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and unacceptable

Reviewer Qualifications:

  • Reviewers are selected based on specialty area, relevant experience, and demonstrated expertise
  • Reviewers should only assess manuscripts within their area of expertise
  • Reviewers who feel unqualified or cannot complete timely review must promptly inform the editorial office and withdraw
  • Reviewers must decline invitations where conflicts of interest exist:
    • Competitive or collaborative relationships with authors
    • Connections to authors' institutions or affiliated organizations
    • Any relationship that could compromise impartiality

Confidentiality:

  • All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents
  • Privileged information obtained during peer review must be kept confidential
  • Information must not be disclosed, discussed, or used for personal or professional advantage

Acknowledgment of Sources:

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by authors
  • Reviewers should ensure references to others' ideas, data, or findings are appropriately acknowledged
  • Reviewers must notify editors of substantial similarity or overlap with other published or submitted works

Publication Ethics for Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors must:

  • Present an accurate account of their research
  • Provide objective discussion of research significance
  • Represent all underlying data accurately
  • Provide public access to raw data upon reasonable request
  • Retain raw data for at least two years following publication

Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are strictly unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must:

  • Ensure their work is entirely original
  • Appropriately acknowledge and cite any use of others' work or words
  • Avoid plagiarism in all forms
  • Not submit the same manuscript concurrently to multiple journals

Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Affiliations

Authors must:

  • List all relevant institutional affiliations
  • Accurately reflect where research was conducted, approved, and/or supported
  • For non-research articles: provide current institutional affiliation
  • If affiliation changed prior to publication: list the affiliation where work was performed as primary affiliation; current affiliation may be included in acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

Individuals who contributed to manuscript development but do not meet authorship criteria should be appropriately acknowledged (with their permission).

Authors should also acknowledge:

  • Organizations or institutions providing financial support
  • Technical assistance providers
  • Other resources relevant to the work

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors must disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the research, interpretation, or evaluation.

Competing interests may include:

  • Financial interests: Grants, payments, services, or other support related to the work
  • Employment: Advisory positions or memberships in organizations with interest in research outcomes
  • Intellectual property: Patents, patent applications, or trademarks
  • Personal relationships: With individuals or organizations that could influence the work
  • Academic interests: Professional competition or critique of related scholarly work

Disclosure Requirements:

  • All potential conflicts of interest must be declared, regardless of whether they influenced the work
  • Disclosure does not automatically preclude publication but enables informed assessment
  • Failure to disclose relevant interests may result in rejection, publication of correction, or retraction
  • Authors uncertain about potential conflicts should disclose them or consult the editorial office

Example statement:

"Author A has received research support from Company X. Author B has served as a consultant for Company Y. Authors C and D declare no competing interests."

Funding Statement

Authors must:

  • Disclose all sources of funding related to the submitted work
  • Include financial support, grants, or other forms of sponsorship
  • Describe the role of sponsor(s) in:
    • Study design
    • Data collection, analysis, and interpretation
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Decision to submit for publication
  • Explicitly state if sponsor(s) had no involvement in the research or publication process

Example statement:

"This work was supported by [Funding Agency] (Grant number XXX). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Citations

Authors must:

  • Cite relevant, current, and reliable sources to support claims
  • Avoid excessive self-citation or coordinated citation practices intended to artificially increase citation counts (this constitutes citation manipulation and is considered publication misconduct)
  • For non-research articles: ensure references provide balanced and objective overview of the topic, not biased toward specific individuals, institutions, or journals

Authors uncertain about citation practices should consult the editorial office.

Corrections of Published Work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in published work:

  • The author must promptly notify the journal editor
  • The author must collaborate with the editor to retract or correct the article

Use of Third-Party Material

Authors are responsible for:

  • Obtaining all necessary permissions to reproduce or adapt third-party material
  • Retaining evidence of permission and making it available to the editorial office upon request

Limited use: Short text extracts or other materials may be permitted without formal permission for purposes of criticism, review, or scholarly commentary, in accordance with applicable copyright regulations.

For other uses: Written permission from the copyright holder must be obtained prior to manuscript submission.

For guidance, contact the editorial office.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

This policy applies only to writing and manuscript preparation, not to data analysis or research activities where AI use is scientifically appropriate.

Permitted Uses

Authors may use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies to:

  • Improve language, clarity, or readability
  • Check grammar and spelling
  • Assist with translation

Prohibited Uses

AI must NOT be used to:

  • Generate scientific, educational, or medical conclusions
  • Interpret results
  • Provide clinical recommendations
  • Replace essential scholarly activities

Requirements

  • All AI-assisted content must remain under human oversight
  • Authors must carefully review and edit manuscripts to ensure accuracy, completeness, and absence of bias
  • Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the manuscript
  • A statement describing such use will be included in the published article

Important: Artificial intelligence tools must NOT be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship carries responsibilities that can only be fulfilled by human contributors.

All listed authors remain fully accountable for:

  • Originality, accuracy, and integrity of the work
  • Ensuring the manuscript does not infringe third-party rights

AI Use in Peer Review

To protect authors' rights and ensure confidentiality, the journal does not permit reviewers to use generative AI or AI-assisted technologies (including ChatGPT or similar services) during the peer-review process.

Note: The journal continues to evaluate compliant AI tools and may revise this policy in accordance with ethical and regulatory standards.

Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct

Definition of Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct refers to any action that:

  • Violates the journal's editorial policies
  • Breaches publication ethics
  • Contravenes internationally recognized guidelines issued by COPE, ICMJE
  • Compromises the integrity, reliability, or transparency of research or publication

All suspected cases are investigated in accordance with COPE procedures and flowcharts. The journal treats all allegations seriously and takes appropriate corrective actions.

Forms of Research Misconduct

The following practices constitute misconduct and may result in manuscript rejection, retraction, or other sanctions:

  • Misrepresentation of author affiliations
  • Breaches of copyright or unauthorized use of third-party material
  • Citation manipulation
  • Duplicate submission or duplicate publication
  • "Ethics dumping"
  • Image or data fabrication and falsification
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process
  • Plagiarism and text recycling (self-plagiarism)
  • Failure to disclose competing interests
  • Conduct of unethical research

Duplicate Submission and Publication

Policy: Manuscripts submitted to IPMJ must not have been previously published or be under simultaneous consideration by another publication.

Consequences: Duplicate submission or publication will result in immediate rejection and may lead to additional sanctions.

Exception: If your submission builds upon previously published work, you must:

  • Clearly cite the earlier publication
  • Demonstrate substantial novel contribution beyond the prior work

Citation Manipulation

Definition: Citation practices intended primarily to inflate citation counts of specific authors, institutions, or journals.

Policy: Citations must be included based on their relevance and contribution to the work.

Consequences: Citation manipulation is considered unethical and will result in editorial action in accordance with publication ethics guidelines.

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Policy: Deliberate manipulation, fabrication, or misrepresentation of research data is strictly prohibited and constitutes serious research misconduct that undermines the integrity of the scholarly record.

Authors must:

  • Ensure all data presented are accurate, complete, and faithfully represent the research conducted
  • Retain original raw data supporting all findings
  • Provide original data to the journal upon reasonable request for verification or investigation

Consequences: Failure to provide original data when requested may result in manuscript rejection or article retraction.

Improper Authorship or Attribution

Policy: All listed authors must have:

  • Made substantial scholarly contributions to the work
  • Approved the final manuscript

Prohibited: The omission of eligible contributors or inclusion of individuals who do not meet authorship criteria is considered unethical.

Redundant Publications

Definition: The inappropriate division of study outcomes into multiple publications without adequate justification or disclosure.

Policy: Redundant publication is prohibited.

Image Manipulation

Policy: All images submitted must accurately represent the original data.

Permitted Adjustments: The following image adjustments are permitted provided they do not distort or misrepresent the original data.

  • Brightness, contrast, or color balance adjustments that do not distort or misrepresent the original information

Prohibited Practices: The following practices are not allowed in image manipulation.

  • Enhancement, obscuring, removal, or addition of elements without disclosure
  • Any manipulation that misrepresents the original data

Requirements: When modifying images, the following must be clearly documented and submitted upon request.

  • Clearly explain any grouping or modification of images in the figure legend
  • Provide original, unedited images upon editorial request

Consequences: Failure to provide original, unedited images when requested may result in manuscript rejection or article retraction.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

After publication, it may occasionally be necessary to amend an article to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. All post-publication changes are made following careful editorial review and in accordance with COPE guidelines. All changes are transparent, permanent, and clearly linked to the original article.

Correction (Corrigendum or Erratum)

  • Purpose: Issued when errors or omissions are identified that may affect interpretation but do not compromise overall scientific validity
  • Corrigendum: Corrects errors made by authors
  • Erratum: Corrects errors introduced during publication process

Expression of Concern

  • Purpose: Published when there are serious but unresolved concerns regarding article integrity and an investigation is ongoing
  • Use: Alerts readers to potential issues while investigation continues

Retraction

  • Purpose: Issued when major errors invalidate conclusions, or when research or publication misconduct has occurred
  • Grounds for retraction:
    • Lack of ethical approval
    • Data fabrication or falsification
    • Image manipulation
    • Plagiarism
    • Duplicate publication
    • Other serious misconduct
  • Process: Retraction decisions are made in line with COPE guidance
  • Requests: Authors or institutions may request retraction if criteria are met

Article Removal (rare)

May be considered when legally required

Appeals and Complaints

The journal follows COPE guidance on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about editorial management of the peer review process.

Appeals Process

  • We welcome genuine appeals to editor decisions
  • You must provide strong evidence or new data/information in response to editor and reviewer comments
  • Submit appeals to the Editors-in-Chief

Complaints Process

All complaints or concerns related to:

Should be submitted to the Editors-in-Chief.

Investigation process:

  • Matters are investigated in accordance with COPE principles and procedures
  • The Editors-in-Chief may request information from all parties involved
  • The review or publication process may be suspended until issue is resolved
  • If Editors-in-Chief are directly involved in the complaint, senior Editorial Board members will handle the matter

Protection of Patient Privacy and Confidentiality

General Principles

  • Patient privacy rights must be fully respected at all times
  • Authors are solely responsible for obtaining written informed consent for publication prior to submission
  • Authors must securely retain all consent forms
  • Identifying information must not be published unless essential for scientific purposes and written informed consent has been obtained
  • The journal adheres to ICMJE guidelines on patient privacy and confidentiality

Prohibited Identifying Information

The following information must NOT be published without written informed consent:

  • Patient names
  • Initials
  • Hospital numbers
  • Photographs
  • Sonograms
  • Radiologic images (e.g., CT scans, MRI scans, X-rays)
  • Pedigrees
  • Any other identifying details in figures or text

Informed Consent Requirements

Consent process:

  • Informed consent requires that the identifiable individual be shown the manuscript or relevant content prior to publication
  • Authors must inform patients that potentially identifiable material may be made publicly available both in print and online
  • Consent must be documented in writing and securely archived by the authors

Best practices:

  • Nonessential identifying details should be omitted whenever possible
  • If anonymity cannot be fully guaranteed, informed consent must be obtained
  • Masking features (e.g., eye region in photographs) is NOT considered sufficient to ensure anonymity
  • If identifying characteristics are altered to protect privacy, authors must confirm that alterations do not compromise scientific integrity or data interpretation

Consent Documentation

  • Consent forms must be properly archived by the authors
  • Consent forms must NOT be:
    • Uploaded with the manuscript
    • Included in the cover letter
    • Sent to editorial or publisher offices (unless specifically requested)

Manuscript Requirements

  • If a manuscript includes patient images or descriptions that may allow identification, it must contain a clear statement confirming that written informed consent for publication was obtained
  • When informed consent has been obtained, this must be clearly stated in the published article

Example statement:

  • "Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient."
  • "Written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patient's parent/legal guardian."

Consequences of Non-Compliance

Failure to comply with these requirements may result in:

  • Rejection of the manuscript
  • Withdrawal of a published article

Research Involving Human Participants

Requirements:

Manuscript statement required:

  • Authors must include a clear statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all human participants prior to participation
  • Privacy and confidentiality rights of human subjects must be respected at all times

Example statement:

"This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of [Institution Name] (Date/Reference Number). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study."

Research Involving Animals

Requirements:

Manuscript requirements:

  • Authors must explicitly state that these guidelines were followed
  • The sex of animals must be reported
  • Where relevant, the influence or association of sex on study outcomes should be addressed
  • Provide detailed information on ethical treatment of animals:
    • Housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment
    • Steps taken to minimize suffering
    • Mode of anesthesia and euthanasia

Example statement:

"All animal procedures were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of [Institution Name] (Protocol Number XXX) and were conducted in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines and the National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The sex of animals was [specify]. Steps taken to minimize animal suffering included [describe]."

Special Issues

Special Issues of IPMJ are planned and approved by the Editorial Team and typically published to address:

  • Specific medical themes
  • Academic activities
  • Significant scientific events organized or supported by the institution

Submission requirements:

  • Manuscripts for Special Issues are subject to the same requirements as regular submissions:
    • Same author guidelines
    • Same editorial standards
    • Same double-blind peer-review process
  • Authors should carefully review and comply with all journal submission guidelines

Timing

  • Topics for Special Issues are determined by the Editorial Team
  • A formal call for submissions is announced when a Special Issue is scheduled
  • Submissions to IPMJ are accepted on an ongoing basis throughout the year

Publication

  • All issues, including Special Issues, adhere to the same editorial policies and review procedures

Manuscripts are considered for publication in the next available issue once review and production are complete

{ top }