• Timeliness & Publication Workflow         

Timeliness is critical to ensure research remains relevant and accessible to the scientific community and the public. The journal establishes a structured timeline to streamline the publication process, balancing efficiency with quality at every stage.

 

• Initial Editorial Decision: Authors can expect an initial decision—whether to reject, request revisions, or proceed to peer review—within 2 to 4 weeks from the submission date. This timeframe allows the editorial team to assess the manuscript’s fit, originality, and compliance with journal standards. If additional materials are required (e.g., a missing ethics approval document or a conflict of interest statement), authors will receive a detailed notification within this period, including a deadline (typically 7 days) to provide the information. Failure to respond may result in rejection.

 

• Peer Review Duration: The journal aims to deliver the first peer review decision within 2 to 4 weeks from submission. This includes time for reviewer selection, evaluation, and editorial assessment. For complex manuscripts—such as those involving multi-center clinical trials, extensive datasets, or novel methodologies—or when finding suitable reviewers proves challenging (e.g., due to niche expertise), the process may extend to 6 weeks. Authors are informed of any delays via email, accompanied by an updated timeline (e.g., "Delay expected until August 15, 2025, due to reviewer availability"). Reviewers are expected to submit detailed reports within 1 weeks of accepting the invitation. Extensions of up to 1 week are permissible if justified (e.g., academic conference attendance or personal emergency), provided the request is submitted within 3 days of the deadline.

 

• Revision Timeframe: Authors are allocated 2 weeks for minor revisions—such as clarifying a statistical method or improving readability—and 4 weeks for major revisions, which might involve conducting additional experiments or re-analyzing data. Extensions of up to 2 weeks can be requested with a valid reason (e.g., a co-author’s medical leave or unexpected equipment failure), supported by documentation if necessary. Requests must be submitted at least 5 days before the deadline. Non-compliance without a compelling excuse (e.g., natural disaster) may lead to manuscript withdrawal, though authors can appeal with evidence of extenuating circumstances.

 

• Post-Acceptance Production: Once accepted, manuscripts enter the production phase, which includes copyediting for grammar and style, typesetting for layout, and proofing for accuracy, completed within 1 to 2 weeks. Authors receive proofs via email and must review and approve them within 3 days, addressing queries (e.g., "Please confirm Table 2 data") and ensuring no errors remain. Significant changes (e.g., adding a new figure) require Editor approval to avoid delays, which could push publication back by a week.

 

• Online Publication: Articles are published online in their final, citable form with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) within 1 to 2 weeks of final proof approval, appearing under "Online First" or "Ahead of Print" sections. This allows immediate access and citation (e.g., "DOI: 10.1000/xyz123, published July 18, 2025"). For urgent research—such as studies on emerging health crises like a new viral outbreak—expedited publication within 1 week is possible, provided reviewers and editors agree, and all production steps are accelerated.

 

• Issue Compilation: Articles are organized into monthly or quarterly issues within 2 weeks of online publication, with editorial teams prioritizing thematic coherence (e.g., a special issue on hypertension management scheduled for September 2025). This ensures related studies are grouped for reader convenience, though the online version remains the authoritative record.

 

• Metrics Transparency: To promote accountability, the journal displays average processing times—such as submission to first decision (e.g., 5 weeks) and acceptance to online publication (e.g., 3 weeks)—on its website. These metrics are updated quarterly (e.g., next update on October 1, 2025) and audited annually by an external body to ensure accuracy and reflect improvements.

 

• Author Communication: Authors receive weekly status updates during the review process via email or the submission portal, detailing progress (e.g., "Manuscript with Reviewer 1 since July 15, 2025"). Immediate notifications are sent for significant issues, such as a reviewer withdrawing, allowing authors to address concerns promptly.

 

• Expedited Processes: For time-sensitive research (e.g., a public health emergency like a cholera outbreak), authors can request an expedited review. The editorial team assesses feasibility within 48 hours, considering reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. If approved, the process is prioritized, with decisions communicated by July 13, 2025, for submissions made today.

 

• Article Withdrawal, Correction, and Retraction

          Maintaining scientific integrity requires robust policies for managing manuscript issues post-submission.

 

• Pre-Acceptance Withdrawal: Authors may withdraw a manuscript before formal acceptance by submitting a signed request to the Editorial Office, specifying the reason (e.g., submission to a more suitable journal or funding withdrawal). The process is completed within 5 working days, with a confirmation email sent to all authors. This option incurs no penalties, preserving future submission eligibility.

 

• Post-Acceptance Withdrawal: This is strongly discouraged and permitted only in exceptional cases, such as proven ethical violations (e.g., data fabrication confirmed by an audit) or critical errors (e.g., a flawed methodology undermining results). A formal request with supporting evidence (e.g., an ethics committee report) must be approved by the editorial board, which may take up to 10 days. Unjustified withdrawals—such as withdrawing due to a competing offer—may result in sanctions, including a 2-year ban from submitting to the journal. If the manuscript was publicized (e.g., a press release on July 10, 2025), a withdrawal notice is published online, and publication is suspended during the review period.

 

• Corrigendum (Author-Initiated Correction): This addresses significant errors introduced by authors (e.g., a misreported p-value of 0.05 instead of 0.005) that do not invalidate the study’s core findings. Authors must notify the journal within 6 months, submitting evidence (e.g., a corrected dataset or calculation log) and a proposed fix. The Editorial Board reviews the request within 2 weeks, publishing a linked corrigendum if approved (e.g., correcting an author name from "J. Smith" to "James Smith"). Multiple corrigenda may be issued for sequential errors (e.g., two mislabeled figures), with a cumulative impact statement (e.g., "No change to conclusions"). Post-acceptance authorship changes (e.g., adding a contributor) require Editor approval and are documented in a corrigendum.

 

• Erratum (Publisher-Initiated Correction): This corrects production errors (e.g., a swapped figure caption altering interpretation), initiated by the journal upon discovery (e.g., reported by a reader on July 12, 2025). A linked notice is published, and if the error affects data understanding (e.g., a misaligned graph axis), authors are consulted within a 5-day window to confirm the correction.

 

• Retraction: Issued for severe issues, including fraudulent data (e.g., invented patient outcomes), plagiarism, unethical research practices, irreproducible results, or duplicate publication, in line with COPE guidelines. The retraction notice details the reason (e.g., "Plagiarism from a 2023 study"), is hyperlinked to the article, and watermarks the PDF as "Retracted." Authors and their institutions receive a 10-day notice (e.g., until July 21, 2025) to respond, followed by a 30-day review by an independent panel, whose decision is final.

 

• Data Sharing & Availability Policy

          Transparent data sharing enhances scientific progress and validation.

 

 

• Mandatory Statement: All manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement before the References section, clearly outlining data access or reasons for restriction. Examples include:
• Accessible Data: "The datasets supporting this study, including raw echocardiogram data from 75 patients, are available in Dryad at [http://datadryad.org/handle/10255/dryad.98765], DOI: 10.5061/dryad.98765."
• Restricted Data: "Due to privacy regulations under GDPR, individual patient records are not publicly available. Data can be requested from the corresponding author, subject to Institutional Review Board approval and a signed data-sharing agreement, valid for requests received by July 11, 2035."
• No New Data: "This systematic review utilized existing literature and generated no new datasets; all sources are cited within the text."

 

• Repository Encouragement: Authors are urged to deposit de-identified data in FAIR-compliant repositories (e.g., Figshare for general data, GenBank for genetic sequences with accession "MH123456" for a specific gene). Persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI) and direct links must be provided to ensure accessibility.

 

• Statement Requirements:
• Accessible: Include repository name, unique identifier, and link (e.g., "Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.456789, containing statistical models and raw data files").
• Restricted: Specify reasons (e.g., legal constraints like proprietary software patents) and access conditions (e.g., application to a Data Access Committee with a 30-day response time).
• No Data: A clear declaration (e.g., "This theoretical analysis relies solely on published data from 2020-2025").

 

• Compliance: Submission implies adherence to this policy. Inaccurate statements (e.g., a broken link or unverified access claim) may lead to rejection, a published correction, or retraction. Authors may be asked to submit raw data (e.g., anonymized patient logs) for editorial review during peer assessment. Data must remain accessible for 10 years post-publication (e.g., until July 11, 2035), with exceptions (e.g., commercial software code) requiring editorial board approval, documented in writing.

 

• Data Sharing Agreement: Authors sign a formal agreement allowing third-party verification (e.g., independent researchers replicating findings), ensuring confidentiality (e.g., removing names, addresses, or identifiable health data) and compliance with local laws (e.g., HIPAA).

 

• Marketing Claims: Use of peer-reviewed data for promotion (e.g., a pharmaceutical company advertising trial results) requires pre-approval from the editorial board, submitted at least 30 days in advance. A disclaimer must accompany such use (e.g., "These findings reflect published research and do not imply journal endorsement, approved July 2025").

 

• Advertising Section

• Focuses on biomedical relevance (e.g., advertisements for cardiac stents), excluding prohibited items (e.g., tobacco, alcohol). Ads are reviewed for compliance with ICMJE ethics.

 

     •  Conflict of Interest (COI) - Authors

          Ensuring impartiality requires comprehensive disclosure from all contributors.

 

• Declaration Form: A standardized form, accessible via the submission portal, must be completed at submission, detailing all potential COIs. The editorial team reviews it within 1 week, requesting clarification if needed (e.g., "Please specify consultancy duration").

 

• Publication: A summary of disclosed COIs (e.g., "Dr. C received honoraria from Pfizer for speaking engagements in 2024") or a statement ("No conflicts declared") is published with the article. Failure to disclose (e.g., hidden stock ownership) may result in rejection or retraction.

 

     •  Conflict of Interest (COI) - Reviewers, Editors, and Publisher

          A thorough COI policy safeguards editorial independence.

 

• Reviewer COI: Reviewers must decline invitations if they have conflicts, such as co-authoring with the lead author within 3 years, holding financial stakes in a cited product, or personal bias (e.g., rivalry). Potential COIs must be declared upon invitation (e.g., "I consulted for Company X in 2024"). The Editorial Office screens suggested reviewers, recusing those with obvious conflicts (e.g., same institution) within 1 week.

 

• Editorial COI (Handling Editors/Editor-in-Chief): Editors are excluded from handling manuscripts where they have conflicts (e.g., affiliation with the author’s university or a personal relationship). The EiC delegates such cases to an Associate Editor from a different institution (e.g., University of Tokyo if the EiC is at Tehran University). Staff must disclose ties (e.g., equity in a biotech firm), with decisions audited quarterly by an external committee.

 

• Publisher COI: The publisher discloses financial interests (e.g., a partnership with a medical device company) annually on the website (e.g., updated by December 31, 2025), managed by an independent oversight group to prevent commercial influence on editorial choices.

 

• Policy Enforcement: Suspected unreported COIs (e.g., undisclosed funding from a drug company) trigger a 30-day investigation, involving document requests and interviews. Consequences may include barring individuals from future roles, publishing a notice, or retracting affected articles.

 

     •  Complaints and Appeals Policy

          A fair and transparent process addresses grievances and appeals.

 

• Scope: This policy covers concerns about editorial decisions (e.g., perceived bias in rejection), staff conduct (e.g., unprofessional communication), or ethics issues (e.g., plagiarism suspicion). Complaints must be submitted in writing with evidence (e.g., reviewer comments or email correspondence) to the Editorial Office or EiC.

 

• Initial Step: Receipt is acknowledged within 5 working days (e.g., by July 16, 2025, for a complaint filed today), with an investigation launched by the EiC or a delegated Associate Editor (no COI) within 1 week. The investigator assigns a case number (e.g., COMP-2025-07-11-001) for tracking.

 

• Investigation: The process involves confidential consultation with relevant parties (e.g., reviewers, authors), aiming for resolution within 4 weeks. Complex cases (e.g., involving multiple stakeholders or legal issues) receive biweekly updates (e.g., every July 25 and August 8, 2025), extending to 6 weeks if necessary, with a final report detailing findings and actions.

 

• Response: A comprehensive response, including the outcome (e.g., "Reviewer recused, manuscript returned for re-review") and any actions taken (e.g., staff retraining), is provided to the complainant. If unresolved, escalation to the Publisher or COPE is an option, with contact details supplied.

 

• Appeal of Editorial Decision: Authors may appeal a rejection based on procedural errors (e.g., a reviewer with an undeclared conflict) or new evidence (e.g., a corrected dataset unavailable during review), submitted within 4 weeks (e.g., by August 8, 2025, for a July 11 decision). Disagreement with the decision alone is insufficient. A panel of three editors (none involved previously) reviews the case, consulting original or new reviewers, and issues a final decision (e.g., "Rejection upheld due to insufficient new evidence") within 6 weeks (e.g., by August 22, 2025). Only one appeal per submission is permitted.

 

• Ethical Oversight: The policy aligns with ICMJE and COPE guidelines, ensuring ethical handling. An ombudsman is available for final escalation (e.g., for unresolved ethical breaches), contactable via the journal website.

 

     •   Permissions and Accessibility

          Respecting intellectual property and ensuring inclusivity are essential.

 

• Reused Figures: Authors must obtain permission from copyright holders for figures published elsewhere (e.g., a graph from a 2023 Elsevier article), covering both print and online formats. Some publishers (e.g., Wiley) may charge for electronic rights (e.g., $150), and the journal cannot reimburse these costs. If permissions are denied, authors should use alternative images (e.g., redrawing the graph with original data).

 

• Accessibility Standards:
• Captions: Every figure requires a detailed caption (e.g., "Figure 1: Electrocardiogram patterns in 50 patients with ventricular tachycardia, showing QRS duration variations") to support text-to-speech software for blind readers or Braille devices.
• Color Use: Patterns (e.g., cross-hatching with red) must complement colors (e.g., blue bars) to assist colorblind readers in distinguishing elements, tested with tools like Coblis.
• Contrast: Lettering must have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 (e.g., black text #000000 on white #FFFFFF), verified with a contrast checker, ensuring readability for visually impaired users.

 

• Generative AI Images: Use of AI-generated images (e.g., created with Midjourney) must comply with ethical policies, disclosed in the methods section (e.g., "Images generated using AI, verified for accuracy by Author A"). Originality and consent for any human-derived elements are required.

 

      •   Supplementary Information

           Enhancing articles with multimedia adds value and depth.

 

• Accepted Formats: The journal accepts electronic files like videos (e.g., MP4 of a cardiac procedure), audio (e.g., MP3 of a patient interview), spreadsheets (.xlsx with raw data), and specialized formats (e.g., .pdb for protein structures). Files should be standard and compatible with common platforms.

 

• File Details: Each file must include metadata: article title (e.g., "Advances in Heart Failure"), journal name, author names (e.g., "Ali Khan, Sara Rezaei"), and corresponding author’s email (e.g., "ali.khan@med.ac.ir"). This ensures proper attribution and contact.

 

• Citations: Supplementary materials are cited as "Online Resource" (e.g., "See procedure in Online Resource 3"), with files named sequentially (e.g., "ESM_3.mp4", "ESM_4.xlsx") to maintain order.

 

• Captions: A concise caption is required for each file (e.g., "Online Resource 1: 2-minute video demonstrating stent placement technique, recorded 2024").

 

• Processing: Files are published as submitted, without editing or reformatting, to preserve author intent. Accessibility is ensured (e.g., videos avoid flashing >3 times/second to protect epilepsy-prone users), with authors responsible for compliance.

 

• Data Policy: Datasets as SI must follow the journal’s data policy, with repository deposit preferred (e.g., Dryad for a 10MB dataset). Authors should justify inclusion in SI if not deposited (e.g., "Too large for repository, provided as ESM_5.zip").

 

     •   Ethical Responsibilities

          Upholding the integrity of the scientific record is a core commitment.

 

• Originality: Manuscripts must be original, not under review elsewhere, and avoid "salami-slicing" (e.g., splitting a single trial into three papers). Exceptions include translations for new audiences (e.g., Persian version for local readers), with disclosure.

 

• Data Integrity: Results must be presented honestly (e.g., no manipulated images), with clear methods (e.g., "Data analyzed using R v4.3.1") and proper attribution (e.g., quoting a 2024 study with permission). Plagiarism screening uses software lik iThenticate.

 

• Misconduct: Suspected issues (e.g., data fabrication) trigger a COPE-guided investigation, involving author interviews and data requests. Outcomes range from rejection to retraction with a "Retracted" watermark, with institutions notified (e.g., University X on July 20, 2025).

 

• Documentation: Authors must provide raw data (e.g., anonymized patient files) upon request within 14 days, excluding sensitive info (e.g., proprietary algorithms), with exemptions documented.

 

• Authorship: Changes post-submission (e.g., adding a co-author due to oversight) require EiC approval with a detailed explanation (e.g., "Contributor missed due to administrative error"). Disputes are resolved by authors or their institutions, with the journal withdrawing if unresolved.

 

• Reviewer Suggestions: Authors may suggest independent reviewers (e.g., from Japan, not co-authors) with verifiable contacts (e.g., "j.yamada@univ.jp"), though the journal retains final selection rights.

 

     •  Compliance with Ethical Standards

          Transparency in ethical practices is non-negotiable.

 

• Declarations: A "Compliance with Ethical Standards" section must include funding (e.g., "Supported by WHO grant #2025-001"), COIs (e.g., "Dr. Z consults for Medtronic"), and ethics approvals (e.g., "Approved by Tehran University Ethics Committee, Ref #ETH-2025-012"). This is placed before references.

 

• Human/Animal Research: Studies involving humans or animals require ethics approval (e.g., "Conducted per Helsinki Declaration, approved by Ethics Committee A, June 2025") or exemption (e.g., "Retrospective, waived by Committee B"). For cell lines (e.g., HeLa), authors must note source (e.g., "ATCC, 2023") and authentication (e.g., "STR profiling, July 2024").

 

• Informed Consent: Documented consent is required for participants (e.g., "Written consent from 100 patients") and publication (e.g., "Consent for Figure 2 photo, signed June 2025"). Vulnerable groups (e.g., minors) need guardian approval.

 

• Clinical Trials: Prospective trials (e.g., Phase III drug test) must be registered (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT987654), with the number and date (e.g., "Registered July 1, 2025") in the abstract. Retrospective registration is encouraged, noted as "retrospectively registered."

 

• Reporting Standards: Adhere to guidelines (e.g., CONSORT for randomized trials) in the "Declarations" section, with checklists submitted as supplementary files.

 

     •   Post-Acceptance Procedures

          The final stages ensure a smooth transition to publication.

 

• Production: After acceptance, manuscripts are sent to production for typesetting. Authors receive two emails: one to confirm affiliation (e.g., "University of Tehran") and choose publishing model (e.g., open access), and another with proofs once formatting is complete (e.g., by July 18, 2025).

 

• Proof Review: Authors must review proofs within 3 days, correcting typos (e.g., "2024" to "2025") and answering queries (e.g., "Verify Table 3 data source"). Major changes (e.g., adding a result) need Editor approval, with post-publication edits issued as errata.

 

• Online First: Articles are published online with a DOI (e.g., "DOI: 10.1000/abc456, July 20, 2025") after proof approval, citable immediately. The print issue citation follows later.

 

• Open Access: Optional with a fee (e.g., $3000, varying by article length), increasing visibility (e.g., 4x more downloads) and retaining copyright under Creative Commons (e.g., CC BY 4.0). Funding support is available for eligible authors.