Editorial Ethics

❖ The editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

❖ The editors ensure transparency and complete, honest reporting, and should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them.

❖ The editors ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.  Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.

❖  The editor select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking account of the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation. The editor follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

 

Author Ethics

❖ A submitted manuscript must be an original contribution, not previously published (except as an abstract), must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if accepted, it must not be published elsewhere in similar form, in any languages, without the consent of SMB.

❖ Each person listed as an author is expected to have participated in the study to a significant extent. Although the editors and reviewers make every effort to ensure the validity of published manuscripts, the final responsibility rests with the authors, not with the Journal, its editors, or the publisher.

❖ The results should be presented systematically and accurately without manipulation or false information to make the results interesting. The conclusion of the study should be based on the study's data, not the author's own thoughts.

❖ Authors must state all possible conflicts of interest in the manuscript, including financial, consultant, institutional and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest. If there is no conflict of interest, this should also be explicitly stated as none declared. All sources of funding should be acknowledged in the manuscript.

❖ Patient anonymity and Informed consent: Source with permission or informed consent must be provided when any images or previously published figures/tables are present in the article.

 

Reviewer Ethics

❖ Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.

❖ Editors may encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

❖ Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

❖ Reviews should be conducted objectively.  Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

❖ A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper  and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.