Updated: 15 June 2026

 

Policy on Article Amendment and Retraction
In biomedical and academic publishing, authors may occasionally discover that published or accepted data should no longer remain uncorrected. Reasons include administrative errors, inaccurate content, fabricated or falsified data, biased statistical analysis, or breaches of research ethics. Such circumstances necessitate partial or full amendments to the paper. Authors who identify these issues must submit a formal petition stating their intent and rationale to the Editorial Office as early as possible.

I. Fundamental Principles

❖ Articles will not be removed, deleted, or replaced from the journal database. Instead, the original article will remain accessible with linked notices to ensure readers and search engines are fully informed of any amendments or retractions.

❖ Once an amendment or retraction request is submitted, the Editorial Board reserves the right to determine whether an article should be corrected or retracted, based on the nature of the error and ethical concerns involved.

❖ Requests to add, remove, or reorder author names are strictly prohibited once a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.

 

II. Conditions, Timeline, and Responsibilities

❖ Pre-Acceptance (Prior to Acceptance): Authors retain the right to voluntarily modify or withdraw their manuscript before formal acceptance. Upon approval, the journal will watermark every page of the manuscript and prefix the title with “Withdrawn.”

❖ Post-Acceptance: Authors seeking changes after formal acceptance must submit a formal written request for evaluation by the Editorial Board. The final decision rests entirely upon the discretion of the Editorial Board, guided by the severity of the errors or ethical breaches.

 

III. Categorization of Post-Acceptance Editorial Decisions
❖ Erratum
An erratum is issued for errors introduced during the journal's management, editing, or layout process, or for significant errors that alter the main content, interpretation, or study conclusions. Articles requiring an erratum may undergo a re-peer review process at the discretion of the Editorial Board.

❖ Corrigendum
A corrigendum is issued for errors introduced by the authors (e.g., typographical errors or unclear figures) that do not affect the main findings, integrity, or conclusions of the study.

Correction of IRB Details or Study Timeline: If requesting a correction to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval number, approval date, or data collection period, authors must supply the original, official IRB approval certificate from their affiliated institution for verification.

 

IV. Ethical Breaches and Mandatory Retraction Protocols
When an error stems from a breach of research or publication ethics, the journal will not issue an Erratum or Corrigendum. Instead, it will immediately execute a Retraction. The Editorial Board retains the authority to retract a paper without author consent under the following circumstances:

❖ Research Misconduct: Falsification or fabrication of data

❖ Plagiarism

❖ Unreproducible Data

❖ Salami Publication: Redundant publication or unwarranted piecemeal slicing of a single dataset

❖ Unauthorized Reuse of Data

❖ Copyright Infringement

❖ Violation of Funding Contracts or Grants

❖ Hallucinative References: Non-existent or fake citations

❖ Legal Infringements: Libel, defamation, or privacy violations

❖ Other Misconduct: Any severe ethical breaches defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Retracted articles will permanently remain in the journal's digital database. Every page of the PDF will be watermarked with "Retracted," and the title will be prefixed with "[Retracted Article]."

 

V. Formal Submission Procedure
Authors seeking an amendment must submit a formal petition to the Editorial Office via email or postal mail. The submission must adhere to the following requirements:

1. A ​formal ​statement/petition. It must explicitly state a comprehensive and clear justification explaining the origin of the error and why the modification is necessary; identify its exact location within the text; and provide a clear statement confirming that the amendment does not affect the study data, results, or conclusions.

2. Mandatory co-author signatures. At the end of the petition statement, all co-authors listed on that specific article must provide their physical or digital signatures. This single file serves as the definitive proof of explicit agreement to the publication of the notice from the entire authorship team.

The editor-in-chief and the editorial board retain sole discretion to evaluate the submission and determine whether the requested amendment shall be categorized and processed as a corrigendum or an erratum.

The editorial board and the editor-in-chief reserve exclusive, non-negotiable authority regarding the final approval of all amendments and the enforcement of retraction protocols.

 

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.