The Editor of a research journal plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining professional, academic, and ethical standards. Publication should reflect the quality of scholarly work produced by authors and their affiliated institutions, where applicable. The Editor is responsible for the publication process from manuscript receipt to final publication. MSAR Journals expects editors to uphold the following ethical principles.

1. Editor’s Responsibilities and Good Editorial Practices

Editors are responsible for maintaining academic quality, selecting original and relevant research, supporting responsible scholarly expression, protecting research integrity, and addressing the needs of authors and readers. Where necessary, editors should issue corrections, clarifications, expressions of concern, or retractions. Editorial policies must be applied consistently and independently, free from inappropriate institutional or external pressure, and reviewed periodically.

Editors should encourage constructive feedback, apply appropriate peer review, address plagiarism and research misconduct, and communicate publication ethics requirements clearly to contributors.

2. Formation of the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board should comprise qualified, reputable, and experienced scholars. Editorial committees may support editorial operations, while advisory members provide academic guidance and expertise. Board appointments, terms, responsibilities, and international representation should be defined transparently. Members must be informed of their duties and ethical responsibilities. Editorial Board meetings should take place regularly, preferably at least twice annually.

3. Fair Play and Impartiality

Manuscripts must be assessed impartially on the basis of scope, academic merit, scientific quality, originality, and relevance. Decisions must not be influenced by an author's gender, race, ethnicity, religion, cultural background, political views, seniority, or institutional affiliation. Editors should communicate promptly with authors, maintain appropriate manuscript records, and require reviewers to disclose competing interests.

4. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must protect confidential manuscript information and disclose it only to authorized individuals involved in the editorial process. Unpublished material must not be shared, used, or exploited for personal or professional advantage. Editors must also protect the confidentiality and identifiable information of research participants in accordance with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

5. Editing and Formatting Guidelines

Journals must provide clear and accessible manuscript preparation instructions covering structure, formatting, references, and other technical requirements. The applicable reference style and submission requirements should be stated clearly on each journal's website.

6. The Peer Review Process

Manuscripts must undergo the peer-review process specified by the relevant journal. Where double-blind review is used, appropriate anonymization must be maintained. Reviewers should receive clear instructions and evaluation criteria, and their comments should be communicated to authors in a timely and professional manner. Editors must ensure that revisions are appropriately assessed, maintain a suitable reviewer database, and refer complex or conflicted cases to an independent editor when necessary.

7. Dealing with Misconduct

Editors must take concerns about plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate image handling, and missing ethical approval seriously. Suspected misconduct should be assessed fairly and supported by appropriate evidence. Where misconduct is established, editors may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, as appropriate, following recognized publication ethics procedures.

8. Authorship, Editorial Endogeny and Self-Publication

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual contributions. Honorary, gift, and coerced authorship are unacceptable. Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, reviewers, or other individuals involved in editorial decisions must receive independent handling and the same standards of evaluation as other submissions. Authors must not participate in editorial decisions concerning their own work or access confidential review information relating to their submissions. Any journal-specific limits on publications by editors or authors within an issue or year must be clearly stated and applied consistently.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare relevant personal, professional, academic, or financial competing interests. Anyone with a conflict that could compromise impartiality must not handle the affected manuscript. Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members should be assigned to an independent editor. Declarations should be documented appropriately.

10. Disclosure

Editors must not use unpublished data or information from submitted manuscripts without the author's explicit permission. Confidential information obtained through editorial work must not be used for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

11. Publication Decisions

Publication decisions must be based on the journal's scope, scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, and ethical compliance. Authors should receive clear reasons for rejection or requests for revision. Decisions must be communicated within a reasonable timeframe and reconsidered only through the journal's established procedures.

12. Appeals and Complaints

Each journal should provide a transparent process for handling appeals and complaints concerning editorial decisions, publication ethics, or alleged misconduct. Appeals must be considered objectively by an appropriate person who is not improperly involved in the original decision. Outcomes should be communicated with reasons, subject to the journal's established procedures.

1. Definition of Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest (COI), also known as a competing interest, exists when professional judgment regarding research conduct, manuscript evaluation, editorial decision-making, or scientific publication is influenced, or could reasonably be perceived to be influenced, by secondary interests. These may include financial interests, personal relationships, professional rivalries, institutional interests, or strongly held beliefs.

Financial interests: Research funding, employment, consulting fees, paid expert testimony, speaking honoraria, stock ownership, equity, patents, or royalties related to the research.

Non-financial and institutional interests: Personal relationships, academic rivalries, professional competition, intellectual or political beliefs, institutional incentives, and supervisory relationships.

2. Disclosure Requirements for Authors

All authors must disclose financial and non-financial competing interests that could influence their research, interpretation, or presentation. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting the declaration on behalf of all co-authors. Authors must disclose relevant funding sources and explain the funders' roles in study design, data collection, analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Competing interests must be recorded in the OJS submission system and included in a dedicated section at the end of the manuscript entitled “Competing Interests.”

Where confidentiality agreements restrict disclosure of proprietary information, authors must declare the relevant restrictions while maintaining scientific transparency to the extent permitted by applicable ethical and legal requirements.

3. Disclosure by Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers, handling editors, and editorial staff must disclose any competing interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality.

Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts and decline an invitation when appropriate, including when they:

• Have co-authored or closely collaborated with an author within the previous three years.
• Work in the same department, division, or institution where this creates a relevant conflict.
• Have financial, professional, or personal ties to the research or its outcomes.
• Have a conflict or strong commitment that prevents an impartial assessment.

Editors must recuse themselves when a personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationship could compromise their impartiality. The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor without a relevant competing interest.

4. Editorial Independence and Publisher Integrity

MSAR Journals and the MSAR Institute must protect editorial independence. Commercial interests, institutional relationships, funding arrangements, publication fees, and fee waivers must not improperly influence peer review, editorial recommendations, or publication decisions. Editorial decisions must remain based on scholarly merit, research quality, and ethical compliance.

5. Guest Editors and Special Issues

Guest Editors must disclose competing interests before appointment. They must not handle or decide on submissions where their own interests or relationships with authors could compromise impartiality, including relevant relationships with colleagues, students, supervisors, or institutional collaborators. Such manuscripts must be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict.

6. Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

If an undisclosed competing interest is identified during peer review or after publication, the journal will assess the concern and investigate it in accordance with applicable publication ethics procedures, including relevant COPE guidance where appropriate. The individuals concerned may be asked to provide explanations or additional information.

7. Corrective and Disciplinary Actions

Depending on the evidence, seriousness, and outcome of an investigation, MSAR Journals may take proportionate action, including:

• Rejecting a manuscript when it remains under review.
• Publishing a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction when warranted.
• Notifying the author's institution, funder, or other appropriate body where justified and consistent with applicable requirements.
• Restricting future submissions for a defined period or permanently in serious cases, following a fair assessment.

Actions will be proportionate to the findings and consistent with applicable publication ethics procedures. Retractions and corrections will not be imposed solely as punishment where the evidence does not justify them.

Overview

MSAR Journals is committed to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and ethical standards of published research through appropriate peer-review procedures. Editors ensure that manuscripts are evaluated impartially, without discrimination based on authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, nationality, gender, ethnicity, or personal relationships.

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with author guidelines, academic quality, and ethical considerations. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, demonstrate inadequate academic quality, fail to meet essential ethical requirements, or involve unmanageable conflicts of interest may be rejected at this stage. Submissions requiring technical or formatting corrections may be returned to authors before further evaluation.

Peer Review at a Glance

Peer Review Model

Each journal published by MSAR Journals identifies its peer-review model in its journal policies. Where a journal adopts double-blind peer review, authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors, to the extent practicable. Manuscripts are checked for identifying information before external review when required by the applicable model.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the evidence presented. Authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, or personal relationships must not improperly influence the evaluation.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening may be sent to independent reviewers with appropriate expertise. Journals should normally seek at least two independent expert assessments for manuscripts undergoing external peer review. A third reviewer, statistical reviewer, or methodological specialist may be invited when needed.

Reviewers are selected according to relevant expertise, scholarly experience, ability to provide a fair and timely assessment, and the absence of conflicts of interest that could compromise impartiality. Authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers where the individual journal permits this; suggestions are not binding, and the editorial team retains final authority over reviewer selection.

• Relevant subject-matter expertise and an appropriate scholarly record.
• Experience in research methods and critical evaluation of scholarly work.
• Disclosure and management of personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.
• Ability to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and timely comments.

Review Criteria

Reviewers and editors assess manuscripts according to the article type and the requirements of the relevant journal. Criteria may include:

• Originality, novelty, and contribution to existing knowledge.
• Scientific or scholarly significance and relevance to the journal’s scope.
• Appropriateness and validity of the research design and methodology.
• Reliability, reproducibility, and completeness of the reported findings.
• Appropriateness of statistical analyses and interpretation of results.
• Compliance with applicable research ethics and reporting standards.
• Clarity, organization, quality, and completeness of reporting.
• Accuracy of citations and appropriate use of relevant literature.

Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewer reports and the manuscript’s merits, the responsible editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, particularly when major revisions have been requested or specialist reassessment is necessary. The Editor-in-Chief or appropriately designated editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment.

Reviewer Responsibilities and AI Policy

Reviewers are expected to:

• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, review invitations, reports, and editorial correspondence.
• Provide fair, constructive, evidence-based, and professionally expressed assessments.
• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly notify the editor if an extension is needed.
• Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline the assignment when impartiality cannot be maintained.
• Alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, data fabrication, or other possible research misconduct.
• Refrain from using unpublished information for personal, professional, or commercial advantage.

Editorial Responsibilities and Governance

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, assessing reviewer reports, managing conflicts of interest, safeguarding confidentiality, and ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scholarly and ethical considerations. Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, financial, institutional, or personal pressures.

MSAR Journals seeks to follow recognized publication ethics guidance, including relevant COPE Core Practices and applicable ICMJE recommendations. Suspected ethical concerns are assessed under the applicable journal policies and relevant procedures, which may include corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or other proportionate action where warranted.

Editorial independence: Submissions authored by an Editor-in-Chief, editor, editorial board member, or reviewer must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting individual must not influence reviewer selection or the editorial decision on their own manuscript.

Confidentiality and Appeals

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, confidential correspondence, and internal editorial records are accessible only to individuals who require the information for legitimate editorial or peer-review responsibilities. Participants must not share or use confidential materials beyond those responsibilities without appropriate authorization.

Authors who wish to challenge an editorial decision may submit a reasoned, evidence-based appeal to the relevant Editorial Office. Appeals should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting information. Where practicable, the appeal will be assessed by an editor independent of the original decision-making process. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision, and the final outcome will be communicated by the editor authorized under the relevant journal’s procedures.

Part I: Authorship Policy

1. Responsibility of Authors and Authorship Criteria

All listed authors share responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work to the extent appropriate to their contributions. Authors must ensure that the manuscript is original, that its findings are reported honestly, and that the work complies with applicable research and publication ethics requirements.

For biomedical manuscripts, MSAR Journals supports the applicable ICMJE authorship criteria. In general, authorship requires substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All four criteria should be met. Contributors who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission.

2. Author List and Changes to Authorship

The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the Editorial Office and confirming that all authors have approved the manuscript, the author order, their affiliations, and the submission itself.

Authorship changes after initial submission require formal approval. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must be submitted in writing to the editor, explain the reason for the proposed change, and include confirmation from all affected authors and, where required, all co-authors. The editor may request supporting documentation before deciding whether to approve the change. Changes must not be made unilaterally or concealed from the journal.

Individual journals may adopt stricter authorship procedures, provided these are clearly stated and applied consistently. No change to the author list is guaranteed approval.

3. Author Contributions and Corresponding Author Responsibilities

Authors are encouraged, and may be required by the relevant journal, to provide a statement identifying each author's contribution. Where appropriate, a recognized contributor-role taxonomy may be used. Contributions from individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria should be described in the Acknowledgments section rather than represented as authorship.

The corresponding author coordinates submission, editorial correspondence, revisions, and publication-related communications. They should ensure that co-authors are informed of substantive revisions and have approved the final version. Before publication, the author group should carefully check the article proofs, author names, affiliations, contact information, and other publication details.

Requests for post-publication corrections involving authorship or author contributions must be submitted to the Editorial Office with an explanation and relevant author confirmations. Any disagreement will be assessed under the applicable editorial and publication ethics procedures.

4. Affiliations, Present Addresses, Deceased Authors, and Consortia

Author affiliations: Authors should provide the institutional affiliation where the research was primarily conducted. A current or present address that differs from the research institution may be included as a separate note. Affiliations must be accurate and must not imply institutional endorsement where none exists.

Deceased authors: An individual who made a qualifying contribution before death may be included as an author, subject to the applicable authorship criteria and editorial guidance. The corresponding author should inform the Editorial Office and provide an appropriate note identifying the deceased author. A dagger symbol (†) and a statement such as “†Deceased [date]” may be used where suitable and consistent with the journal's style. The date of death should be included only when verified and appropriate.

Consortium and group authorship: Research groups and consortia should clearly identify the group name and the individuals who qualify for authorship. Members who do not meet the authorship criteria may be listed as collaborators or acknowledged contributors, as appropriate. Responsibility for the work and the roles of group members should be transparent.

5. Confidentiality and Reviewer Suggestions

Authors must treat editorial correspondence and peer-review materials as confidential unless the journal's review model or an authorized editorial process provides otherwise. Authors should not disclose confidential reviewer comments or editorial communications without permission. Any public communication about unpublished findings must respect applicable confidentiality obligations, participant privacy, and research agreements.

Where permitted by the relevant journal, authors may suggest up to three potential reviewers with suitable expertise. Suggested reviewers must be independent and free of relevant conflicts of interest. Authors should provide accurate institutional and contact details and must not nominate individuals under false identities or use fabricated reviewer information. The editorial team retains final authority over reviewer selection and assignments.

Part II: Plagiarism Policy

1. Commitment to Research Integrity

MSAR Journals is committed to protecting the originality and reliability of the scholarly record. Manuscripts must appropriately acknowledge the ideas, words, data, methods, images, figures, and other material derived from published or unpublished work by others.

Plagiarism and other forms of publication misconduct are assessed with reference to applicable publication ethics guidance, including relevant COPE practices and journal-specific procedures. Applicable requirements of research institutions, funders, and national or professional bodies may also be considered.

2. Prohibited Practices

The following practices are unacceptable:

• Plagiarism, including unacknowledged copying of text, ideas, data, results, images, or figures.
• Self-plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling without transparent disclosure and proper citation.
• Duplicate or redundant publication of substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure and justification.
• Salami-slicing, meaning unjustified fragmentation of one body of research into multiple publications that misrepresents the contribution or duplicates reporting.
• Misrepresentation of the originality, source, ownership, or provenance of research materials.
• Manipulation or concealment intended to mislead similarity screening or editorial assessment.

Authors are responsible for checking the originality of their submissions, securing necessary permissions, providing appropriate citations, and disclosing relevant prior publications, preprints, translations, or overlapping submissions.

3. Similarity Screening and Assessment

Manuscripts may be screened using text-similarity detection software before external peer review and, where necessary, at later stages of editorial assessment. The software used may vary by journal and institutional availability. Similarity reports are evaluated by editorial staff; a similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism, and a low percentage does not guarantee originality.

Where a journal uses a threshold of 19% overall similarity and less than 5% from any single source, these figures should be treated as screening criteria rather than automatic proof of misconduct. Editors may investigate overlap below a threshold if it raises substantive concerns, and may assess higher similarity where justified by properly attributed or unavoidable material.

Permissible exclusions, where supported by the screening system and the journal's instructions, may include properly cited quotations, bibliographic references, standard technical wording, scientific formulas, and official names. Exclusions must not be used to conceal unattributed copying.

4. Investigation of Suspected Plagiarism

Suspected plagiarism may be identified during initial screening, peer review, production, after acceptance, or following publication. The relevant editor or designated ethics representative will assess the concern in accordance with the journal's procedures and applicable publication ethics guidance.

Where a substantive concern arises, the authors will normally be contacted and given an opportunity to provide a reasoned written response and relevant supporting evidence. A response period will be specified in the notification, taking account of the nature and urgency of the concern. A 30-day response period may be used where appropriate, but failure to respond will not by itself establish misconduct.

Investigations should be conducted fairly, confidentially, and proportionately. Where necessary and justified, the journal may seek clarification from the authors' institutions, research organizations, funders, or other relevant bodies. Editorial action should be based on the evidence available and the seriousness of the concern.

5. Possible Editorial and Corrective Actions

Depending on the evidence and seriousness of the case, possible actions include:

• Returning the manuscript for clarification, correction, or substantial revision.
• Rejecting a manuscript where the concerns are substantiated or cannot be resolved adequately.
• Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction for a published article when justified.
• Notifying an author's institution, funder, or other appropriate authority where warranted by the evidence and applicable procedures.
• Applying proportionate restrictions on future submissions in serious or repeated cases, following a fair assessment and in accordance with the relevant journal's procedures.

Actions will be proportionate to the nature of the misconduct and the evidence available. Retraction, correction, or other notices are intended to protect the integrity of the scholarly record and will not be used solely as punishment where the evidence does not justify such action.

6. Post-Publication Concerns and Translated Work

If credible evidence of plagiarism is raised after publication, MSAR Journals will assess the matter under its applicable procedures. Where warranted, a correction, expression of concern, or retraction notice may be published and linked to the article's online record to preserve transparency and the integrity of the scholarly literature.

Previously published translations: Authors must disclose if any part of a manuscript has previously appeared in another language or publication. A translated article is not automatically considered original. It may be considered only where the relevant journal permits such submissions, the original publication is fully disclosed and cited, necessary permissions are obtained, and the editor determines that the submission meets the journal's requirements for transparency and publication ethics.

7. Authors' Responsibilities and Reporting Concerns

Authors must ensure that all submitted material is original or appropriately attributed, that permissions have been obtained where necessary, and that prior publication or overlapping work is transparently disclosed. Authors must cooperate reasonably with editorial inquiries concerning originality and research integrity.

Editors, reviewers, researchers, and readers are encouraged to report suspected plagiarism or other publication misconduct to the relevant Editorial Office. Reports should include sufficient information to identify the article and, where possible, supporting documentation such as source references or side-by-side text comparisons. Reports will be assessed objectively and handled with appropriate confidentiality.

1. Data Retention and Image Quality

Authors must retain original image files, relevant metadata, and associated source data for submitted figures. These materials may be requested during editorial assessment, peer review, or an investigation of research integrity concerns. Failure to provide requested materials may delay evaluation or publication and may require further editorial assessment.

Unless the relevant journal specifies otherwise, recommended final image resolutions are at least 300 dpi for color images, 600 dpi for grayscale images, and 1200 dpi for line art. Images should be prepared with minimal processing necessary for clear presentation, while preserving the authenticity of the underlying data.

2. Image Processing Standards

All material image processing must be described in the Methods section or figure legends, as appropriate. Authors should identify the software and tools used, relevant image-acquisition methods, and adjustments that could affect interpretation.

Adjustments to brightness, contrast, color balance, or other display settings may be acceptable when they are applied consistently and do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent information. Selective enhancement, removal, addition, cloning, healing, or other manipulation that changes or misrepresents the underlying findings is prohibited.

Images assembled from multiple sources, fields, or time points must be clearly identified. Any boundaries between separate image panels or components should be indicated where necessary, and the figure legend must accurately describe the arrangement.

3. Microscopy Images

For microscopy and related image-based research, authors should provide representative fields and additional supporting images where needed to demonstrate the reported findings. Separate cells, fields, or image regions must not be combined or presented in a way that creates a misleading impression of a single observation.

Adjustments should be applied consistently to the complete image or to comparable images within the same experiment. Selective changes to signal ranges or image regions that distort the scientific interpretation are not acceptable. Any permitted processing must be described transparently.

4. Image Documentation

The Methods section should describe relevant image-acquisition equipment, software, initial image resolution where material, and processing steps. Any resolution enhancement, interpolation, or other processing that may affect image appearance should be disclosed.

Authors must retain unprocessed or original images and make them available to the Editorial Office upon reasonable request. The journal may request source images or additional documentation when needed to verify the authenticity and reliability of submitted material.

5. Handling Suspected Image Manipulation

If a reviewer, editor, reader, or other party raises a credible concern about possible image manipulation, the corresponding author may be contacted and asked to provide an explanation, original image files, and relevant supporting documentation.

Where the response is inadequate or evidence indicates inappropriate manipulation, the journal will assess the matter under its research integrity procedures. Depending on the findings and publication stage, possible actions include requesting corrected figures where the underlying data remain reliable, rejecting the manuscript, issuing a correction or expression of concern, or retracting a published article. Authors are expected to cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification or source material.

MSAR Journals follows recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), for obtaining consent to publish case reports and potentially identifiable clinical material.

1. When Consent for Publication Is Required

Written consent for publication is required whenever a patient or other individual could reasonably be identified from a case report, case series, clinical description, or accompanying material. This includes, where applicable:

• Case histories and clinical descriptions.
• Patient photographs and other identifiable images.
• Radiographs and other medical images.
• Histopathological and pathology images.
• Genetic pedigrees or family information.
• Other clinical information that could reasonably identify an individual.

Consent should also be considered carefully when a report concerns a deceased individual. Where publication could identify the individual, authors must follow applicable ethical, legal, and institutional requirements and obtain consent from an appropriate authorized representative where required.

2. Responsibility for Obtaining Consent

Authors are responsible for obtaining appropriate written consent for publication from the patient or an authorized representative before submitting the manuscript, where consent is required. The person providing consent must be informed that the material may appear in an open-access journal and may remain permanently accessible online, including through indexing services and other online repositories.

3. Patient or Proxy Consent

The consent documentation should identify:

• The patient or individual whose information is to be published.
• The person providing consent.
• The relationship of the signer to the patient, when consent is provided by someone other than the patient.

When consent is provided by a proxy or authorized representative, the circumstances and basis for that authority should be documented as appropriate. Such circumstances may include:

• Patients who are minors.
• Individuals who lack the capacity to provide informed consent.
• Individuals who cannot provide consent because of relevant legal or medical circumstances.
• Deceased individuals, where consent or authorization is required under applicable guidance or law.

Where consent is provided on behalf of a family or group, the person signing should confirm that relevant individuals have been appropriately informed and that the signer has authority to provide the consent stated.

4. Submission and Storage of Signed Consent Forms

MSAR Journals does not routinely require authors to upload or submit signed patient consent forms with a manuscript. Authors and their institutions should retain the original signed documentation securely and in accordance with applicable privacy, legal, and institutional requirements.

The Editorial Office may request confirmation of consent or other appropriate evidence where a legitimate concern arises. Authors must not include unnecessary patient identifiers in routine submission files or editorial correspondence.

5. Author Attestation

Where consent for publication is required, authors must provide an appropriate declaration at submission. The following wording may be used when accurate:

6. Journal Consent Form

Where provided, authors may use the relevant journal's publication consent form. An alternative institutional form may be used if it covers the necessary elements of informed consent for publication. The Editorial Office may request a blank copy of the form, without patient-identifying information, to verify that the required elements are addressed.

7. Original Consent Documentation

The original signed consent form should be retained by the treating institution or responsible clinical authority, rather than routinely submitted to or stored by the journal. The journal may request appropriate evidence or clarification if there is a legitimate concern regarding consent.

8. Anonymisation

Authors must remove unnecessary identifying information from manuscripts, photographs, figures, and supplementary files. Identifiers such as names, initials, medical record numbers, dates of birth, and other unnecessary personal details should not be included in published material.

Authors should therefore obtain publication consent whenever there is a reasonable potential for identification, even if direct identifiers have been removed.

9. Images and Other Clinical Material

Patient photographs, radiographs, CT and MRI images, ultrasound images, pathology images, operative photographs, genetic pedigrees, and similar material must be accompanied by appropriate consent for publication whenever an individual could reasonably be identified.

Where applicable, authors should include a statement such as:

Authors must ensure that image cropping, masking, or removal of identifiers does not distort the scientific content or misrepresent the clinical findings.

10. Editorial Concerns

The Editorial Office may request clarification, additional documentation, or modification of submitted material where concerns arise regarding:

• Potential patient identification or breach of confidentiality.
• Adequacy or scope of consent for publication.
• Proxy consent or the authority of the person providing consent.
• Use of patient photographs or other clinical images.
• Consent involving minors or deceased individuals.
• Compliance with applicable ethical, legal, or institutional requirements.

Where concerns cannot be resolved, the journal may delay editorial processing, request revised or appropriately anonymised material, decline publication, or take appropriate post-publication action in accordance with its ethics procedures.

1. Scope and Editorial Oversight

MSAR Journals is committed to preventing and addressing research and publication misconduct in accordance with recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applicable recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Submissions undergo editorial screening. Where concerns arise regarding research integrity, publication ethics, or compliance with journal requirements, the handling editor may consult the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, or an appropriate ethics representative. Authors will normally be contacted and given an opportunity to respond to substantive concerns. Manuscripts may be rejected when concerns are substantiated or cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers who identify possible data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, plagiarism, image manipulation, inappropriate research practices, or concerns regarding ethical approval or patient consent should notify the handling editor confidentially.

The editor will assess the concern and determine whether further clarification, documentation, or investigation is required. Where misconduct is substantiated, the manuscript may be rejected or other appropriate action taken under the applicable editorial procedures.

3. Data Fabrication, Falsification, and Image Manipulation

Research misconduct includes fabrication of data, falsification of results, inappropriate image manipulation, plagiarism, and other practices that misrepresent research findings or undermine the integrity of the scholarly record.

When credible concerns arise, MSAR Journals will assess the available evidence and may request original data, source images, relevant documentation, or a written explanation from the authors. Institutional or other appropriate inquiries may be sought where warranted.

Where a published article is found to contain serious problems affecting its reliability or ethical standing, the journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the circumstances. Retraction notices will be clearly linked to the original article and displayed in relevant publication formats where technically feasible. Retracted articles will generally remain accessible with an appropriate retraction notice so that the publication record remains transparent.

4. Citation Manipulation

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not manipulate citations to inflate citation counts or advance personal, institutional, or journal interests. Inappropriate practices may include excessive or irrelevant self-citation, coercive requests to cite particular work, and unjustified citation stacking.

References should be selected for their relevance and contribution to the scholarly discussion. Suspected citation manipulation will be assessed by the editorial team, and appropriate action may be taken when the concern is substantiated.

5. Authorship and Attribution

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the author list, order of authors, affiliations, and contribution statements are accurate and have been approved by all listed authors. All authors must approve the final manuscript and accept responsibility appropriate to their contributions.

Honorary, guest, ghost, or otherwise inappropriate authorship is unacceptable. Changes to authorship must be disclosed to the Editorial Office and handled under the applicable Authorship Policy. All contributors must be credited appropriately, and sources of ideas, text, data, figures, and other material must be acknowledged.

6. Redundant and Duplicate Publication

Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is not acceptable. Redundant or duplicate publication, including substantial overlap with previously published work without adequate disclosure, is contrary to responsible publication practice.

Dividing a research project into multiple papers solely to increase publication counts, without a sound scientific justification, is also discouraged. Separate publications arising from a larger project may be appropriate when each provides a distinct and meaningful contribution. In such cases, authors must disclose related manuscripts and publications and cite relevant overlapping work transparently.

7. Possible Actions in Confirmed Cases

Depending on the evidence, severity, and publication stage, actions may include:

• Requesting clarification, original data, or supporting documentation.
• Returning a manuscript for correction or clarification where appropriate.
• Rejecting a manuscript when misconduct is substantiated or serious concerns remain unresolved.
• Publishing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction where justified.
• Notifying relevant institutions, funders, or oversight bodies where appropriate and supported by the evidence.
• Applying proportionate restrictions on future submissions in serious or repeated cases, in accordance with established procedures.

Actions will be based on a fair assessment of the available evidence. Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond to allegations before a final determination, except where urgent action is needed to protect readers or the integrity of the scholarly record.

8. Complaints and Reporting Concerns

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other concerned parties may report suspected misconduct or raise complaints about editorial decisions, peer-review conduct, or journal procedures by contacting the relevant Editorial Office.

Complaints should include sufficient details and supporting evidence to permit an objective assessment. They will be reviewed by an appropriate editor or other person with no relevant conflict of interest. Confidentiality will be maintained as far as practicable, and complaints will be handled in accordance with applicable editorial procedures and recognized publication ethics guidance.

9. Data Sharing and Research Transparency

MSAR Journals encourages transparent reporting, responsible data sharing, and reproducibility. Authors are encouraged, and may be required by the relevant journal or article type, to deposit supporting data, research materials, code, or protocols in an appropriate repository where lawful, ethical, and feasible.

Suitable repositories may include established general-purpose repositories such as Figshare or Dryad, or subject-specific repositories for genomic, clinical, and other specialized datasets. Authors should provide a persistent identifier or repository link in the manuscript when available.

Where data cannot be made publicly available because of participant confidentiality, privacy, legal obligations, ethical restrictions, or legitimate proprietary limitations, authors must explain the restriction in a Data Availability Statement. The statement should describe whether and under what conditions data may be accessed, including any required approvals or restrictions. Authors must not promise access that they are not authorized to provide.

MSAR Journals considers appeals objectively to assess whether established editorial procedures were followed and whether the original decision was reached fairly, consistently, and without inappropriate bias.

An appeal should be submitted in writing to the relevant Editorial Office and should clearly identify the manuscript, the decision being challenged, the grounds for appeal, and any supporting evidence. Appeals may address factual errors, material misunderstandings of the manuscript, procedural irregularities, or credible concerns about bias or conflicts of interest. Disagreement with a decision alone does not guarantee reconsideration.

Where appropriate, the editor may review the manuscript history, peer-review reports, editorial correspondence, and relevant ethical or procedural records. The appeal should, where practicable, be assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest.

Appeals will be handled confidentially and as promptly as reasonably possible. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal, further review, or acceptance. The final outcome will be communicated to the corresponding author by the editor authorized under the relevant journal's procedures.

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is contrary to responsible publication practice. By submitting a manuscript to an MSAR journal, authors confirm that the submission complies with the journal's submission requirements and applicable publication ethics policies, including requirements concerning prior or simultaneous submission.

1. Requesting Withdrawal

Authors may request withdrawal while a manuscript is undergoing editorial processing by sending a formal written request to the relevant Editorial Office. The request should identify the manuscript and provide a clear reason for withdrawal. The corresponding author must confirm that all listed authors have agreed to the request. The editor may seek written confirmation directly from co-authors where necessary.

2. Confirmation of Withdrawal

A manuscript remains under consideration until the Editorial Office confirms withdrawal in writing. Authors should not submit the same work to another journal while withdrawal is pending. Submitting elsewhere before confirmation may constitute a breach of publication ethics and may lead to further editorial inquiry.

3. Withdrawal After Review or an Editorial Decision

Requests made after peer review or after an editorial decision will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The journal may request additional information to establish the reason for the request and ensure that the interests of all authors and the integrity of the publication process are appropriately considered.

4. Withdrawal After Acceptance or Publication

Requests received after acceptance or publication require additional editorial assessment. Once an article has been published, removal from the scholarly record is not normally the default response. Where an article requires correction, retraction, or other action, the journal will follow its Corrections, Retractions and Editorial Expressions Policy and relevant publication ethics guidance.

MSAR Journals follows recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant COPE guidance and applicable ICMJE recommendations, when assessing corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and other post-publication issues.

1. General Policy

Concerns, complaints, or requests for corrections relating to submitted or published manuscripts should be directed to the relevant Editorial Office. Requests affecting scientific accuracy, attribution, or the publication record should include a clear explanation and verifiable supporting evidence.

Editorial actions will be proportionate to the nature of the concern and the evidence available. Formal notices will be linked to the original article where appropriate, helping readers understand what has changed and why. These provisions apply to all article types published by MSAR Journals.

2. Publisher Correction

Errors introduced by the journal during editorial processing, typesetting, production, or publication may be corrected when they materially affect accuracy, integrity, presentation, or attribution. Depending on the nature of the error, the journal may correct the online record and publish a formal correction notice linked to the affected article.

3. Author Correction

Authors should promptly notify the Editorial Office of errors discovered after publication that materially affect the scientific content, methodology, data, results, interpretation, or conclusions of their article.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect scientific meaning or the publication record may not require a formal correction. When a formal correction is warranted, the journal will normally publish a linked correction notice rather than silently replacing the original article or making an undocumented substantive change.

4. Retraction

Retraction may be considered when substantial concerns undermine the reliability, integrity, or ethical standing of a published article. Reasons may include:

• Major errors in data, calculations, or results that invalidate the findings.
• Fabricated or falsified data, or serious image manipulation.
• Plagiarism or substantial unacknowledged duplication.
• Redundant or duplicate publication that materially misrepresents the scholarly record.
• Serious breaches of research ethics or publication consent requirements.
• Significant undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the work or its interpretation.
• Other substantiated circumstances that make the article unreliable or ethically unacceptable.

Where an article is retracted, it will generally remain accessible with a prominent retraction notice linked to the original publication. The notice will explain the reason for retraction as transparently as possible while respecting legitimate confidentiality and legal obligations.

Authors will normally be notified of the concerns and given an opportunity to respond before a final determination. Where urgent action is necessary to protect readers or the integrity of the scholarly record, the journal may take interim action, including an expression of concern, while an investigation proceeds. Retraction decisions are made by the appropriate editorial authority under the relevant journal's procedures.

5. Editorial Statements and Expressions of Concern

Where a credible concern exists but cannot yet be resolved, the editors may issue an editorial statement or an Expression of Concern to alert readers while further assessment or investigation is ongoing.

Such notices will be displayed prominently and linked to the original article where appropriate. Following the outcome of the investigation, the notice may be updated, or further action may be taken, including publication of a correction or retraction where justified.

6. Post-Publication Critiques

MSAR Journals supports responsible post-publication scholarly discussion through letters, commentaries, correspondence, and other appropriate academic communications.

Substantive concerns raised by readers, researchers, or other parties may be assessed by the Editorial Office and referred for further review or investigation where warranted. Authors may be invited to respond. Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions may be issued when supported by the evidence and applicable publication ethics standards.

7. Submitting a Post-Publication Concern

Reports should identify the article and describe the concern clearly, with supporting documents or evidence where available. The journal will assess reports objectively and maintain appropriate confidentiality during the process. A report does not automatically establish misconduct or guarantee a particular editorial outcome.

1. Clinical Trial Registration Requirement

MSAR Journals expects clinical trial reports to comply with applicable recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), relevant ethical requirements, and the policies of the journal to which the manuscript is submitted.

Clinical trials within the scope of the ICMJE recommendations must be registered in a publicly accessible, recognized clinical trial registry before enrollment of the first participant. Authors should provide the registry name and unique registration number in the manuscript, normally at the end of the abstract, in accordance with the relevant journal's instructions.

Pilot and feasibility studies are assessed according to their design, objectives, methods, and reporting. Their designation as pilot or feasibility studies does not, by itself, exempt them from applicable clinical trial registration requirements.

2. Definition of a Clinical Trial

For the purposes of this policy, MSAR Journals follows the ICMJE definition of a clinical trial: a research project that prospectively assigns people or groups of people to an intervention, with or without a concurrent comparison or control group, to evaluate the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome.

3. Accepted Clinical Trial Registries

Authors should register eligible trials in a publicly accessible registry that meets the applicable ICMJE requirements. Depending on the study and jurisdiction, acceptable options may include:

• WHO ICTRP primary registries: Primary registries recognized within the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform framework.
• ClinicalTrials.gov: The clinical trial registry maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine, where applicable to the trial and registration requirements.
• Other recognized registries: Registries accepted under current ICMJE recommendations and relevant WHO criteria.
• Pakistan regulatory requirements: Registration or authorization through the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), where applicable. Authors should ensure that any regulatory registration also satisfies the public registry requirements relevant to publication.

Authors are responsible for confirming that the selected registry is appropriate for their study and meets the applicable requirements. Regulatory approval or authorization should not automatically be treated as a substitute for public clinical trial registration where public registration is required.

4. Registration Information in the Manuscript

Authors should report the following information clearly in the manuscript:

The registration number should normally appear at the end of the abstract, following the journal's manuscript preparation instructions. The registration details should also be provided in the appropriate methods or trial-registration section when applicable.

5. Protocol Transparency and Reporting

Authors should ensure that the submitted report accurately reflects the registered trial and its protocol. Changes to primary or secondary outcomes, eligibility criteria, methods, or analysis plans should be transparently described where relevant. Authors should explain material deviations and avoid presenting post hoc analyses as if they had been prespecified.

Trial registration does not replace the requirement for research ethics approval, informed consent where applicable, appropriate trial conduct, or compliance with relevant reporting guidelines. Authors should use the reporting guideline appropriate to their study design, such as CONSORT for applicable randomized trials.

6. Editorial Assessment and Compliance

The editorial team may verify the registry details, request supporting information, or seek clarification about registration timing and protocol discrepancies. Failure to meet applicable registration or reporting requirements may result in a request for clarification, rejection, or other appropriate editorial action.

Meeting the registration requirement does not guarantee acceptance. Manuscripts remain subject to editorial screening, peer review, ethical assessment, and the journal's usual publication criteria.

7. Reference and Further Information

1. Open Access Publishing License

MSAR Journals supports open access scholarly communication. Articles published in its journals are made available online for reading and, subject to the applicable article license, downloading, sharing and reuse. The open access terms applicable to an article are identified by the relevant journal or article record.

Unless an article or journal specifies different licensing terms, content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license permits reuse for non-commercial purposes while requiring appropriate attribution to the original creators.

Attribution requirements

Users must provide appropriate credit to the original author or authors and other identified attribution parties, include a link to the license, and indicate whether changes were made. Attribution must not suggest that the authors, journal, publisher or affiliated institutions endorse the reuse or the user.

Non-commercial restriction

CC BY-NC 4.0 does not permit use of the licensed material for commercial purposes under that license. Commercial reuse may require separate permission from the relevant rights holder. Users must not impose additional legal terms or effective technological measures that legally restrict others from exercising the rights granted by the license.

The full license is available at the official Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 license page.

2. Journal Funding and Article Processing Charges

MSAR Journals aims to reduce financial barriers to scholarly communication and support the dissemination of research. During its foundational period, journal operating and publishing costs are intended to be supported by the parent organization, the Multidisciplinary Scholarly Advancement and Research (MSAR) Institute, subject to the resources and arrangements applicable to each journal.

Editorial decisions, peer-review outcomes and publication priorities must remain independent of an author's ability to pay. Any change to a journal's fee or waiver arrangements should be communicated transparently on that journal's website before it takes effect.

3. Publisher's Note, Scientific Responsibility and Jurisdictional Neutrality

Editorial responsibility and scientific opinions

MSAR Journals and its editorial teams seek to maintain appropriate standards of scholarly quality, research integrity and editorial review. However, opinions, interpretations, conclusions and claims expressed in published articles are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors, publisher or affiliated institutions.

Publication in an MSAR Journals title does not, by itself, constitute endorsement or independent certification of a product, treatment, diagnostic method, biomarker, device, experimental model or commercial service by the journal, publisher or any affiliated institution.

Scientific and clinical verification

Published research is intended to contribute to scholarly discussion, education and the development of scientific knowledge. Findings, methods and clinical recommendations should be interpreted in light of the study design, evidence limitations, applicable professional standards and subsequent research. Biomedical findings should not replace appropriate clinical assessment, medical advice, regulatory requirements or professional judgment. Independent validation may be necessary before research findings are translated into clinical practice.

Geopolitical and institutional neutrality

MSAR Journals maintains a neutral position regarding territorial sovereignty, geopolitical disputes and jurisdictional claims that may appear in maps, institutional affiliations or article text. The presentation of a place name, map boundary or institutional affiliation does not necessarily express the publisher's position on the legal status of a territory or jurisdiction.

Authors are responsible for providing accurate and verifiable institutional affiliations and for using geographic terminology appropriately in the context of their work. Editors may request clarification where a geographic designation or affiliation is ambiguous, inaccurate or potentially misleading. Such requests should be handled consistently with scholarly accuracy and applicable editorial standards.

Limitation of responsibility

Authors retain responsibility for the accuracy of their data, methods, analyses, interpretations, references and conclusions. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the publisher and journal do not guarantee that every statement or finding in a published article is free from error and are not responsible for decisions made solely on the basis of published content. Nothing in this statement excludes or limits any liability that cannot lawfully be excluded or limited.

4. Advertising and Sponsorship Policy

Editorial independence

MSAR Journals safeguards the independence of editorial decisions from commercial, financial and sponsorship interests. Advertising or sponsorship arrangements must not determine or improperly influence peer review, manuscript acceptance or rejection, editorial assessments, publication timing, or the presentation of scholarly findings.

Editors and reviewers must assess manuscripts according to the journal's editorial policies and scientific criteria, independently of advertising revenue or sponsor interests.

Identification and separation of advertising

Where advertising or sponsored content is displayed, it must be clearly identifiable and visually distinguishable from scholarly articles, editorial material and journal governance information. Commercial claims should be presented accurately and must not be misleading. Sponsorship must not be represented in a way that implies editorial endorsement of a product or service.

Prohibited or inappropriate advertising

MSAR Journals may reject or remove advertisements or sponsorships that conflict with research integrity, applicable law, responsible medical practice or public health principles. This may include promotion of tobacco products, weapons, fraudulent or unsubstantiated medical claims, or other products and services considered incompatible with the journal's ethical standards.

Review and termination of arrangements

The publisher, in consultation with the relevant editorial leadership where appropriate, may assess advertising eligibility, placement, disclosures and compliance with this policy. Advertising or sponsorship arrangements may be refused, modified or terminated where necessary to protect editorial independence, research integrity, reader trust or legal compliance.

Advertisements and sponsorship messages do not constitute endorsement or validation by MSAR Journals, the MSAR Institute, the journal's editorial team or affiliated institutions.