Policies

The following policies apply to all journals published by Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development. Please read these policies in full before submitting your article, to ensure you’ve correctly followed all the requirements.

Peer Review Process

The journal employs a double-blind peer review to all submitted manuscripts, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. A more in-depth description of our peer review process is below.
Initial In-house Assessment Stage
When the manuscript arrives at the editorial office of the journal, the editor-in-chief carries out an initial in-house assessment of the received manuscript based on the suitability of the topic according to the journal’s aims & scope, the author’s adherence to the journal’s guidelines (word count, language clarity, and format), research quality, the importance of the topic and relevance to the journal’s readership. If the manuscript does not pass these initial checks, the author will be contacted to revise their manuscript according to the journal criteria; however, the editor-in-chief might reject the manuscript immediately. Rejected manuscripts at this stage have serious flaws, are insufficiently original, have poor language, or do not fall within the aims and scope of the journal. Authors whose manuscripts are rejected at this stage will be informed directly. This rejection can enable a fast decision if the manuscript is not suitable for the journal, enabling the author(s) to submit the paper to another journal quickly.
Peer Review Stage
When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The reviewers are initially invited to review the manuscript by sending them the abstract of the manuscript. Upon acceptance to review the manuscript, the reviewers are sent the full text of the manuscript and requested to do the review within 2 to 3 weeks as a maximum to submit their reports to the editor-in-chief. The reviewers are also required to disclose potential conflicts of interest if any, that may affect the outcome of the double-blind reviewing process.
The reviewers are provided with an evaluation form requesting them to judge the manuscript in terms of the paper novelty, originality, valuable contribution to the existed field of study, ethical aspects, scientific misconduct, the structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines, references provided to substantiate the content, literature review, design and methodology, clarity of findings and discussion, documentation and references. The reviewers are also required to include general and specific anonymous comments to the author(s). If the two reviewers are in disagreement in their judgment on the suitability of the paper for publication, the second round of peer review may be initiated. Each online review report should conclude with a final recommendation for the submitted paper, which can be one of the following:
(a) accepted without any changes; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication
(b) accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns.
(c) accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised.
(d) rejected, means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to fundamental issues.
Revision Stage
Once the manuscript is received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be sent to the author with a manuscript evaluation form. If the manuscript is accepted with minor revisions, author(s) will be given one week to make the corrections. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, two weeks will be allotted for revision.
Final Decision Stage
At this stage, the editor will look through the resubmitted manuscript to make sure that the author(s) has revised the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments. At this stage of the final decision, the author(s) may be required to make further revisions, or the manuscript might be rejected if the author(s) did not adequately carry out the revisions suggested by the reviewers.
Copyediting, Layout Editing and Proofreading Stage
Once the manuscript is accepted by the editorial team, it will undergo a copyediting, layout editing and proofreading process to ensure the linguistic quality of the manuscript. After the editing stage is finished, authors are requested to double-check the PDF file of the final version before online publication.
Complaints Policy
The journal strives to deal with to and resolve all complaints as soon as possible. The procedures followed by the journal to handle and resolve complaints aim to be fair for authors filing complaints and for those being complained about.
Appeals against editorial decisions
In case an author would like to challenge an editorial decision, he or she should contact the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. After the appeal is made by the author, the Editor-in-Chief will review the manuscript, peer reviewers' comments and reach a decision for accepting or rejecting the manuscript. If required, the Editor-in-Chief may send the manuscript to new referees for peer review. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final in such cases. All submitted complaints will be acknowledged within two working days.

Plagiarism Policy

Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development strives to maintain academic integrity in publishing. All manuscripts submitted to the journal will be screened for plagiarism by the plagiarism checker “Turnitin” at the following points in time:
1. Upon receipt of the submission
2. When the author(s) submits the finalized manuscript after peer review
A manuscript will be rejected immediately if considered by the editorial office to be plagiarized or self-plagiarized.

A report of plagiarism will be handled as follows:
1. The complainant contacts the editorial office of the journal in which the published article suspected of plagiarism appeared.
2. The complainant indicates which sections have been plagiarzed by clearly referring to both the original and suspected articles.
3. The editorial office conducts an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an explanation.
5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the complaint of plagiarism, an erratum or retraction is necessary to remedy the situation. However, there may still be a disagreement concerning the wording of the description.
6. In the case of nonresponse within the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted.

Retraction Policy

The journal strongly believes in maintaining and protecting the integrity of the academic record. Manuscripts formally published in the journal are considered as the “Version of Record”. Very rarely, when the scientific information in a manuscript is significantly undermined, it becomes obligatory for the journal to publish corrections to, or retractions of manuscripts published on the journal website, at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.
Article Corrections Contributors are encouraged to report errors related to the accuracy of published information in their manuscripts. Errors that impact the manuscript considerably will be considered only. Corrections are made at the editor-in-chief’s discretion. The correction procedure is based on the publication stage of the manuscript. Corrections will be published under corrections and addendum in an upcoming issue of the journal.
Article Retractions The manuscript published in the journal may be retracted due to scientific misconduct in some circumstances such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, fraudulent use of data or plagiarism. Concerned authors are required to submit a signed statement form to the editorial office before a manuscript can be retracted. The retractions are decided on a case by case basis by the editor in consultation with the authors and the reviewers of the manuscript. A retraction notice will be published and linked to the original manuscript being corrected and a link to the retraction page will be placed on the article published earlier.
Article Removal In extremely exceptional circumstances, it may be mandatory to remove the published manuscript from the journal website. This may happen if the manuscript is found to be defamatory or infringing on other’s legal rights leading to a court order. Under such circumstances, the whole manuscript will be removed and replaced with a screen stating that the manuscript has been removed due to legal reasons.
Article Replacement If the manuscript is found to include inaccurate data which may pose a serious health risk if acted upon by others, the authors of the original manuscript may wish to retract the manuscript and replace it with a corrected version. In this case, the above procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the manuscript retraction notice will contain a link to the corrected manuscript together with a history of the document.
Article Withdrawal The manuscript can be withdrawn by the author(s) or the publisher. The manuscript can be withdrawn at any time before it is officially published online. If the authors request withdrawal of their manuscript, a signed withdrawal request letter will be required to reach to the editorial office prior to the withdrawal of the manuscript. The publisher can withdraw the manuscript if it is found to violate the ethical publishing guidelines of the journal such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, multiple submission, fraudulent use of data or bogus claims of authorship. In such a case, the PDF version of the manuscript will be removed and replaced by a note that the manuscript has been withdrawn formally.

Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent 

The journal is steadfast in its commitment to ethical research practices, as reflected in our comprehensive policies on Human and Animal Rights, as well as Informed Consent. Regarding Human Rights, authors submitting manuscripts involving human subjects must adhere to established ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent and institutional review board approval. The protection of participant confidentiality and the rights of vulnerable populations are paramount, and explicit consent is mandated if there is any potential risk of identification. Our commitment to upholding the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki is unwavering.

In the realm of Animal Rights, the journal demands that authors conducting research involving animals provide clear evidence of ethical approval from appropriate oversight bodies. Compliance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals is imperative, ensuring humane treatment and the minimization of any potential distress or harm to research animals. The journal insists on transparency regarding the ethical considerations in animal research, reinforcing our dedication to responsible and compassionate scientific inquiry.

Informed Consent stands as a cornerstone of ethical research, requiring authors to furnish evidence of obtaining informed consent from human participants. This documentation should encompass the nature, purpose, and potential risks of the study, emphasizing the voluntary nature of participation. Authors must affirm adherence to ethical standards and demonstrate that participants were fully informed before engaging in the research process.

These robust policies on Human and Animal Rights, as well as Informed Consent, underscore the Journal of Medicine's unwavering commitment to ethical research conduct, promoting the highest standards of integrity and responsibility in the pursuit and dissemination of medical knowledge. Adherence to these policies is not only a prerequisite for publication but also an affirmation of our collective commitment to advancing medical science responsibly and ethically.

Conflict of Interest and Competing Interests

Conflict of interest is a situation in which financial or other personal interests are likely to make professional judgment and objectivity bias and untrustworthy.
- Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
- Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
- Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Confidentiality

The data and information of individuals (e.g., information obtained through a doctor–patient relationship) must be handled with the highest levels of confidence and discretion. It is therefore almost always necessary for authors to obtain written informed consent from any patients described in case reports and from those who are the subject of photographs. However, a report may be published without explicit consent if it meets all three of the following conditions: it is of great significance to public health (or is important in some other way); consent would be unusually difficult to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Appeals and Complaints and Misconduct

Al-Kindi Center for Research and Development journals follow Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about a journal’s editorial management of the peer-review process.
Appeals, complaints, or allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre-or post-publication. If an allegation is made to the journal, it must also be passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem.
Should an individual wish to submit an appeal, complaint or raise an issue of potential misconduct regarding the journal or its content, they should contact that editor in chief and/or the publisher to explain their concerns.
The journal does not tolerate abusive behaviour or correspondence towards its staff, academic editors, authors, or reviewers. Any person engaged with the journal who resorts to abusive behaviour or correspondence will have their contribution immediately withdrawn and future engagement with the journal will be at the discretion of the editor and/or publisher.