Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (JBPE) is a bimonthly peer-reviewed English-language journal that publishes high-quality basic sciences and clinical research (experimental or theoretical) broadly concerned with the relationship of physics to medicine and engineering.

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Original Research

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical Note

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Hypothesis

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Systematic Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Blackboard

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Correspondence

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Obituary

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Report

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief will assign the management of the peer review process to one of the Editors who is familiar with the subject area. The designated editor will then select two to three reviewers based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. The corresponding author will then be informed of the reviewers’ comments. If the manuscript is accepted, it will be copy edited, and a galley proof will be sent to the corresponding author for the final correction and approval.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en_US), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the position statements developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Duties of Editors:

Publication decisions

The Management Team of JBPE, consisting of the Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor and the Head of the Editorial Office is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Management Team may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Management Team may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. JBPE operates a web-based submission system, which is run in a way that prevents unauthorised access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, JBPE may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). JBPE does not disclose reviewers’ identities. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, this is permitted.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Corrections

When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error). Ensuring the integrity of the published record – suspected research or publication misconduct If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, JBPE Management Team will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, JBPE will take this to the institutional level. In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, JBPE may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded JBPE will publish comment that explains the findings of the investigation. JBPE may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it. JBPE will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal. In other cases, JBPE may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory). Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Acknowledgement of Sources Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Reviewer misconduct

JBPE Editors will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, will be taken to the institutional level.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Hazards If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Reporting of research involving humans or animals Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms). Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the prespecified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary or post hoc analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding. Authors should supply research protocols to journal editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering

ISSN / e-ISSN: 2251-7200

Publisher: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

Website: www.jbpe.org

 

CrossMark Policy

Applying the CrossMark icon is a commitment by Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering (JBPE) to maintain the content published and alert readers to changes if and when they occur.

What is CrossMark?

CrossMark, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. We recognize the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attach the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. Clicking on the CrossMark icon will inform the reader of the current status of a document also provide additional publication record information about the document.

Permanency of Content

All content published in JBPE is permanently published, regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows after publication. All versions of all articles that have passed peer review are permanently archived in PubMed Central.

JBPE participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark policies, JBPE is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking on the CrossMark logo, at the top of each JBPE article, will give you the current status of the article and its last updates and direct you to the latest published version.

In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, we will apply the COPE Policies on Retraction Guidelines when published content needs to be corrected or retracted; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing. Based on the COPE guideline, JBPE editors consider retracting a publication if:

  • there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri­cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  • it constitutes plagiarism
  • it reports unethical research

JBPE editors consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  • they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
  • there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
  • they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
  • an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

JBPE editors consider issuing a correction if:

  • a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
  • the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

  • a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings