Editorial Policies

1. Editorial Independence

1.1. Final Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) maintains full and final authority over the editorial content of the journal in their authority. This autonomy ensures that all decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection are based exclusively on scholarly merit, originality, and methodological rigor. The INSS Press, as a publisher, do not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles.

1.2. Separation of Commercial and Editorial Decisions

To maintain the integrity of the scholarly record, the editorial process is strictly separated from the commercial and financial management of the journal.
Advertising & Sponsorship: Decisions are never influenced by advertisers, sponsors, or the publishers.
Revenue Models: The payment or waiver of Article Processing Charges (APCs) has no bearing on editorial outcomes. Editors responsible for scientific decisions do not have access to authors' payment or financial information during the review process.

1.3. Protection from External and Stakeholder Influence

INSS Press journals operate as an independent forum for scientific discourse. Editorial judgment shall not be overridden by political pressure, institutional affiliations, or the interests of any external stakeholder. Editors are mandated to reject any attempt by owners or publishers to influence the selection of content for non-scientific reasons.

1.4. Handling Submissions from Internal Stakeholders

To prevent "self-publishing" bias and ensure transparency:
Editor Submissions: If an Editor or Editorial Board member submits a manuscript, they are strictly recused from the entire peer-review process for that paper.
Independent Oversight: Such manuscripts are handled by an independent Guest Editor or an external Section Editor who has no professional or personal ties to the author.
Disclosure: All papers authored by board members will include a transparent "Competing Interests" statement detailing how the review was independently managed.

1.5. Commitment to International Ethical Standards

INSS Press journal’s editorial independence is anchored in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. We adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to ensure fairness, transparency, and objectivity. In cases of disputed editorial decisions or allegations of misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief follows the COPE flowcharts to reach an impartial resolution.

2. Originality and Prior Publication Policy

2.1. Originality and Contribution

INSS Press journals only consider manuscripts that are the original work of the authors and have not been published previously. Submissions must provide a significant advancement in the field.
Novelty: The work must present new data, theoretical developments, or a unique synthesis of existing literature.
Text Recycling: The reuse of an author’s own previously published text ("self-plagiarism") is strictly monitored. Limited reuse in the "Materials and Methods" section is permissible only if the original source is explicitly cited and the overlap does not affect the novelty of the findings.

2.2. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

INSS Press does not consider manuscripts that are under review elsewhere or have been published in other journals, books, or peer-reviewed conference proceedings.
Preprint Policy: Posting a manuscript on a recognized preprint server (e.g., arXiv, SSRN, medRxiv) is permitted. Authors must disclose the DOI of the preprint at the time of submission.
Redundant Publication: "Salami-slicing" (breaking one study into multiple small papers to increase publication count) is considered a breach of ethics. Editors may request related manuscripts from the authors to ensure the current submission represents a distinct and substantial contribution.
Exceptions: Secondary publications (e.g., translations) may be considered only if they follow the ICMJE guidelines for secondary publication and have the written consent of both the original and the current editors.

2.3. Plagiarism Screening and AI Disclosure

To maintain the highest standards of integrity, INSS Press journals employ a multi-stage screening process:
Software Verification: All submissions are screened using iThenticate/Crossref Similarity Check.
Similarity Thresholds: Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 15-20% (excluding references) are flagged for manual editorial review.
AI Policy: Authors must declare the use of Generative AI tools in the manuscript’s preparation. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Any AI-generated text or data must be clearly identified to ensure transparency and accountability.

2.4. Handling Misconduct and Breaches

If plagiarism, duplicate publication, or data fabrication is identified, INSS Press journals follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines:
Pre-publication: The manuscript will be summarily rejected, and the authors' institutional integrity officer may be notified.
Post-publication: If a breach is discovered after publication, the article will be subject to a formal Retraction or Correction notice, which will be permanently linked to the original file to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
Sanctions: The Editorial Board reserves the right to impose a temporary or permanent ban on submissions from authors found to have engaged in intentional scholarly misconduct.

3. Authorship and Contributorship Policy

3.1. Criteria for Authorship

INSS Press journals follow the authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). To be listed as an author, an individual must meet all four of the following criteria:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
Final approval of the version to be published; and
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section rather than listed as authors.

3.2. Contributor Roles Statement (CRediT)

To provide transparency and credit where it is due, all submissions must include a CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement. This statement must clearly define the specific contribution of each author (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, Funding Acquisition). This statement will be published as part of the article's metadata.

3.3. Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The Corresponding Author acts as the primary point of contact between the editorial office and all co-authors. Their responsibilities include:
Ensuring all listed authors meet the criteria in Section 3.1.
Verifying that all authors have approved the final manuscript and the CRediT statement.
Providing ORCID iDs for all authors.
Handling all communication regarding revisions, proofs, and post-publication queries.

3.4. Changes to Authorship

In accordance with COPE guidelines, any addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names must be requested before the manuscript is accepted.
Protocol: The corresponding author must send a formal request to the Editor-in-Chief including a valid reason for the change and a scanned letter of consent signed by all authors (including those being added or removed).
Post-Acceptance: Changes to authorship after acceptance will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and may require a formal Corrigendum.

3.5. Authorship Integrity (Prevention of Malpractice)

INSS Press journals maintain a zero-tolerance policy toward authorship malpractice:
Ghost Authorship: Excluding individuals who made substantial contributions (e.g., professional medical writers or junior researchers).
Guest/Gift Authorship: Including individuals who did not contribute to the research (e.g., senior department heads or colleagues included to increase the paper's prestige).
Paper Mills: The journal monitors for "suspicious authorship patterns" (e.g., sudden changes in authorship or multiple submissions with unrelated topics). Suspected cases will be investigated according to the COPE Flowcharts, which may result in rejection or institutional notification.

3.6. Acknowledgements

The Acknowledgements section must be placed at the end of the manuscript, immediately preceding the Reference list. This section should be used to recognize individuals who provided technical help, writing assistance, or general support (such as Department Chairs) but who do not meet the four criteria for authorship defined in Section 3.1. Financial support and grant information should be listed separately in the Funding section.

4. Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

4.1. Definition and Scope

A Conflict of Interest (COI), also known as a competing interest, exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). INSS Press journals require full transparency to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.

4.2. Author Disclosures

All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence their work.
Financial Interests: This includes funding, grants, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, or patent-licensing arrangements related to the research.
Non-Financial Interests: This includes personal or professional relationships, academic competition, or philosophical/political leanings that may be perceived as bias.
Mandatory Statement: Every submission must include a "Declaration of Competing Interests" section. If no conflicts exist, authors must state: "The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper."

4.3. Reviewer Responsibilities and Recusal

Peer reviewers are the gatekeepers of scientific quality. To ensure an objective review:
Mandatory Disclosure: Reviewers are required to declare any COI before accepting a review invitation.
Recusal Criteria: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a recent (within 3 years) co-authorship with the authors, work at the same institution, or have a direct personal/competitive relationship.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must not use the work they are reviewing for their own advantage or to the disadvantage of others.

4.4. Editorial Independence and Board Submissions

To prevent institutional or "crony" bias, INSS Press journals enforce a strict firewall:
Editor Recusal: Editors will not handle manuscripts if they have a COI. The manuscript will be reassigned to another member of the editorial board.
Board Submissions: If an Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board member submits a paper, the entire process—from reviewer selection to the final decision—is managed by an independent external editor.
Anonymity: The authoring editor is blinded to the peer-review process of their own paper to the same extent as any other author.

4.5. Post-Publication Discovery of COI

In accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, if an undisclosed COI is discovered after publication:
Investigation: The journal will conduct a formal inquiry.
Correction/Retraction: If the COI is significant and was intentionally withheld, a "Expression of Concern" or a formal "Retraction" may be issued.
Funding Transparency: All sources of financial support for the research must be explicitly listed in the "Funding" section of the manuscript.

5. Data, Materials, and Code Policy

5.1. Commitment to Open Science and Reproducibility

INSS Press journals are committed to the transparency and reproducibility of research. We believe that sharing the underlying assets of a study—data, code, and materials—is essential for the validation of scientific results. Authors are expected to adhere to the FAIR Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable).

2. Mandatory Data Availability Statement (DAS)

All manuscripts must include a "Data Availability Statement" before the References section. Authors must select one of the following standardized options:
“The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [Repository Name] at [URL/DOI].”
“The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.”
“Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed during this study.”
“The data cannot be shared publicly due to [specific reason, e.g., participant privacy or legal restrictions].”

5.3. Repository Hosting and Persistent Identifiers

To ensure long-term accessibility, authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data and code in recognized, third-party repositories rather than hosting files on personal or institutional websites.
Data Repositories: Examples include Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, or discipline-specific repositories (e.g., GenBank).
Code Repositories: New software, algorithms, or custom scripts should be deposited in GitHub (linked to Zenodo for a DOI), Bitbucket, or Open Science Framework (OSF).
DOIs: Whenever possible, authors must provide a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or a stable accession number for the deposited assets.

5.4. Materials Sharing and Methods Detail

Authors must provide a "Materials and Methods" section with sufficient detail to allow for independent replication.
Specialized Materials: If specific reagents, cell lines, or specialized equipment were used, authors must state their source and any restrictions on availability.
Experimental Protocols: Authors are encouraged to deposit detailed step-by-step protocols in Protocols.io and link them within the manuscript.

5.5. Peer Review of Data and Code

Editors and reviewers reserve the right to request access to the raw data or code during the peer-review process to verify the findings. Failure to provide data for validation purposes upon an editor's request may result in the rejection of the manuscript.

5.6. Ethical and Legal Restrictions

INSS Press recognizes that some data (e.g., patient records, indigenous knowledge, or proprietary industry data) cannot be shared. In such cases:
Authors must explicitly state the nature of the restriction in the DAS.
If the data is protected by privacy laws (e.g., GDPR), authors should explain the conditions under which the data may be accessed by other researchers (e.g., through a Data Use Agreement).

6. Correction, Retraction, and Removal Policy

6.1. Commitment to Scientific Integrity

INSS Press journals recognize that the scholarly record must be permanent and reliable. We follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards for handling post-publication changes. Our goal is to ensure that any necessary changes are made in a way that is transparent to the reader and preserved in the metadata of the article.

6.2. Corrections (Errata and Corrigenda)

A correction notice will be issued if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading or incorrect.
Erratum: Issued to correct significant errors made by the journal/publisher during the production process.
Corrigendum: Issued to correct significant errors made by the authors (e.g., an error in a formula, a missing author name, or a mislabeled image).
Protocol: The original article remains unchanged, but a separate notice is published, linked to the original, and assigned its own DOI.

6.3. Expressions of Concern

The Editor-in-Chief may issue an "Expression of Concern" if:
There is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution is unwilling to investigate the matter.
An investigation into alleged misconduct is ongoing but will not be completed for a considerable time.

6.4. Retractions

Retractions are reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon.
Criteria: This includes data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, or duplicate publication.
The "Watermark" Rule: In accordance with international digital preservation standards, retracted articles are not removed from the journal’s website or the archive. Instead, the PDF will be watermarked with the word "RETRACTED" on every page, and a formal Retraction Notice will be linked to the article to explain the reasons for the action.

6.5. Article Removal (Withdrawal)

In extremely rare circumstances, an article may be physically removed from the online database. This only occurs if:
The content is defamatory or infringes on others’ legal rights.
The content is the subject of a court order.
The content, if acted upon, might pose a serious health or safety risk. In these cases, the metadata (title and authors) will remain, but the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.

6.6. Transparency and Version Control

Crossmark: INSS Press journals use Crossmark (or similar metadata services) to allow readers to quickly verify the current status of an article.
Indexing: All notices (Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern) are sent to Scopus and other indexing databases to ensure the record is updated across the global scientific community.