Peer Review Process
Each submission is checked for suitability when received by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and may be rejected without review if it is outside the scope of the journal, is of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections.
The Journal invites Editorial Board members to review each article that is considered suitable for consideration. The Journal aims to make a first decision (after review) within 30 days.
The Journal uses double-blind peer review (neither the authors nor the reviewers know the identity of each other) to avoid bias. On receipt of two reviews, the EIC will decide to (1) accept, (2) ask for revisions, (3) ask for major revision, or (4) decline a submission. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors. When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports, then the article is rejected for further revision. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the EIC will decide depending on the level of revision requested.
If an author considers that a decision to Decline publication was incorrectly made, that decision could be appealed. To appeal a decision the author must email the Editor in a letter, clearly explaining the justification of the appeal. The appeal will be considered by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision. Only one appeal per decision will be considered.
Conflict of Interest
The Journal adheres to standards set forth by COPE in establishing and complying with conflict-of-interest guidelines.
All authors must declare and describe all and any conflicts of interest, professional or financial, when submitting a paper. A disclosure statement should be included in a Cover Letter to the Editor of the Journal or can be downloaded from the ICJME and signed by each author and included in the submission.
In case of an alleged conflict of interest, the authors of the paper will be contacted to request an explanation for the material in question. Based on the reply from the author(s), a determination by the Journal’s Editorial Board will be made. If the paper is still in peer review, it will be sent back for author revision with the request to address the issue(s) or to rewrite the paper. If the paper is already published, and the Editorial Board will publish a retraction of the paper.
Patient Anonymity
It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that a patient’s anonymity be carefully protected. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. Informed consent for publishing identifying information requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Patient consent should be written and archived with the Journal. The author should maintain a copy of all informed consent and indicate informed consent within the published article.
Institutional Review Board and Study Registration
It is the author’s responsibility to verify that any experimental investigation with human subjects reported in the manuscript was performed with informed consent and following all the guidelines for experimental investigation with human subjects required by the institution(s) with which all the authors are affiliated. the authors’ Institutional Review Board or its equivalent must have approved of studies involving live human or animal subjects. All clinical investigations must have been conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trials must have been prospectively registered in a registry that meets ICMJE criteria (available at http://www.icmje.org). The registry at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov meets such requirements.
Scientific Misconduct
The Journal adheres to standards set forth by COPE in establishing and complying with scientific misconduct guidelines.
Plagiarism & Ethical Misconduct
All articles submitted are screened for plagiarism. If allegations of unethical authorship are well founded, the person(s) designated by the EIC will follow through on COPE Guidelines. To read further please visit: Promoting integrity in research publication (COPE)
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
If an error is discovered after publication, it will be corrected by an erratum, retraction, or in-line (dated) correction. Reported errors will be investigated by the Editor or designated Editorial Board member and discussed with the authors. The appropriate correction will be made after this consultation. Articles will be retracted if there is evidence of unethical research, unreliable data, misconduct, or plagiarism, or if there are sufficient mistakes to invalidate the article.
More information and instructions on addressing Ethical issues in publishing can be found at:
Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals
Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics
Each submission is checked for suitability when received by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) and may be rejected without review if it is outside the scope of the journal, is of insufficient quality, or is missing important sections.
The Journal invites Editorial Board members to review each article that is considered suitable for consideration. The Journal aims to make a first decision (after review) within 30 days.
The Journal uses double-blind peer review (neither the authors nor the reviewers know the identity of each other) to avoid bias. On receipt of two reviews, the EIC will decide to (1) accept, (2) ask for revisions, (3) ask for major revision, or (4) decline a submission. The reasons for the decision will be communicated to the authors. When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after receiving reviewer reports, then the article is rejected for further revision. When revised articles are received, they will either be sent out for further review or the EIC will decide depending on the level of revision requested.
If an author considers that a decision to Decline publication was incorrectly made, that decision could be appealed. To appeal a decision the author must email the Editor in a letter, clearly explaining the justification of the appeal. The appeal will be considered by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the original decision. Only one appeal per decision will be considered.
Conflict of Interest
The Journal adheres to standards set forth by COPE in establishing and complying with conflict-of-interest guidelines.
All authors must declare and describe all and any conflicts of interest, professional or financial, when submitting a paper. A disclosure statement should be included in a Cover Letter to the Editor of the Journal or can be downloaded from the ICJME and signed by each author and included in the submission.
In case of an alleged conflict of interest, the authors of the paper will be contacted to request an explanation for the material in question. Based on the reply from the author(s), a determination by the Journal’s Editorial Board will be made. If the paper is still in peer review, it will be sent back for author revision with the request to address the issue(s) or to rewrite the paper. If the paper is already published, and the Editorial Board will publish a retraction of the paper.
Patient Anonymity
It is the author’s responsibility to ensure that a patient’s anonymity be carefully protected. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. Informed consent for publishing identifying information requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Patient consent should be written and archived with the Journal. The author should maintain a copy of all informed consent and indicate informed consent within the published article.
Institutional Review Board and Study Registration
It is the author’s responsibility to verify that any experimental investigation with human subjects reported in the manuscript was performed with informed consent and following all the guidelines for experimental investigation with human subjects required by the institution(s) with which all the authors are affiliated. the authors’ Institutional Review Board or its equivalent must have approved of studies involving live human or animal subjects. All clinical investigations must have been conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical trials must have been prospectively registered in a registry that meets ICMJE criteria (available at http://www.icmje.org). The registry at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov meets such requirements.
Scientific Misconduct
The Journal adheres to standards set forth by COPE in establishing and complying with scientific misconduct guidelines.
Plagiarism & Ethical Misconduct
All articles submitted are screened for plagiarism. If allegations of unethical authorship are well founded, the person(s) designated by the EIC will follow through on COPE Guidelines. To read further please visit: Promoting integrity in research publication (COPE)
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
If an error is discovered after publication, it will be corrected by an erratum, retraction, or in-line (dated) correction. Reported errors will be investigated by the Editor or designated Editorial Board member and discussed with the authors. The appropriate correction will be made after this consultation. Articles will be retracted if there is evidence of unethical research, unreliable data, misconduct, or plagiarism, or if there are sufficient mistakes to invalidate the article.
More information and instructions on addressing Ethical issues in publishing can be found at:
Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals
Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics