Publication Ethics
EDITORIAL POLICY
of Moldovan Journal of Health Sciences
The Journal of Health Sciences of Moldova (MJHS) is an open access trimestrial publication that supports scientific research in the field of medical sciences.
The evaluation of articles proposed for publication is done using the double-blind peer review procedure, and to prevent plagiarism, all articles are checked.
The editorial policy and ethical standards of the MJHS are based on international editorial norms and recommendations from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as those from Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors (PERK).
Taking into account the principles of transparency and good practices, all parties involved in the editorial process have a number of responsibilities:
Publishers and publishing house
Publication decisions and editorial independence
The editor-in-chief of the peer-review is solely responsible for making the decision on the publication or rejection of any article proposed for publication, but based on the results received from the experts who evaluated the scientific work.
The selection of manuscripts is made according to the following criteria: originality, clarity, scientific quality, ethical rigors, and classification in the thematic profile of the journal.
Decisions to publish or reject articles are taken taking into account editorial policy, legal and ethical issues such as libel, the proliferation of xenophobia, copyright infringement, multiple publication of an article and plagiarism.
The editor-in-chief takes full responsibility for the editorial content and decides when it will be published.
The editor-in-chief coordinates the entire editorial process, organizes the editorial board, and appoints the members of the editorial committee.
Objective assessment
The evaluation of the articles is made according to scientific criteria and without discrimination (of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, citizenship, sexual orientations, or political ideology).
Privacy
The editor-in-chief and the editors involved in the evaluation process are obliged not to disclose the names of the authors who proposed texts for publication or the names of the referees or scientific consultants involved in the peer review of these texts.
On the materials, until they are published, the editors keep a full confidentiality.
Publishers are not allowed to disclose articles submitted for publication, except for authors, appraisers, and publishers, if applicable.
Disclosures and conflicts of interest
The members of the editorial board cannot use, in their own works, ideas from the rejected articles. If, however, a publisher wishes to use such information, it must ask, in writing, for the consent of the author(s).
Publishers are obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding the ideas and information in the evaluated articles and are prohibited from being used for personal purposes.
Publishers must refuse articles that generate conflict of interest (competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions related to the work).
Publishers must ask authors; prior to or after publication, whether they are or have been in a situation that has created a conflict of interest.
If a conflict of interest has occurred, the author must declare this conflict of interest and be resolved.
In connection with the citation of articles from your own magazine
The editor-in-chief and the editors are prohibited from forcing authors to cite articles from the journal they represent, as an implicit or explicit condition of publishing the proposed article.
Bibliographic recommendations, when made, are meant to improve the published material.
Involvement and cooperation in case of ethical investigations
The editor-in-chief and the editors are obliged to take appropriate action in cases where ethical issues are raised in relation to published articles.
The author will be contacted and the case will be analyzed to clarify the situation.
If the complaint is confirmed, a note acknowledging the mistake will be published.
If, several years after publication, a complaint is made about an article, it will proceed as in the previous articles.
Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
The reviewer evaluates the article and prepares the report he sends to the editor, together with his decision.
The reviewer takes part in the evaluation of the article, assists the editor and supports the author, if necessary, in order to improve the article.
Peer review is the essential component underlying the method of scientific evaluation.
Promptitude and fairness
Referees who believe that they are insufficiently qualified to review an article are required to request withdrawal from the evaluation process of that material.
Referees who believe that they cannot respond as promptly as possible to the peer review request must notify the responsible editor or editor-in-chief to be replaced by other specialists.
Privacy
Any material received for evaluation should be treated with strict confidentiality. The article should not be presented or discussed with persons other than those authorized by the responsible publisher.
Standards and objectivity
Evaluations are objective. Referees must express their opinions, clearly, with arguments, only on the text.
Identification of relevant works and sources
Reviewers must identify relevant works that have not been cited by the author and recommend them to the author.
Observations and arguments must be accompanied by relevant citations.
Any similarity between the analyzed material and another published work must be reported to the editor-in-chief.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
The reviewer should not use the information or ideas obtained from the evaluation process for personal use.
Reviewers must only carry out the scientific evaluation of the article and must not follow whether or not the author is in conflict of interest.
Authors
Reporting standards
In the paper, authors must accurately present all the information.
Sufficient details and references must be included in the content of an article.
Fraud and misrepresentation are unethical behaviors and are unacceptable.
Access and keeping of data
Authors may be asked by the journal for the raw data of their investigations for an editorial analysis.
Public access to these data must also be allowed after the publication of the article.
Multiple, redundant, or simultaneous publishing
The author(s) must not propose for publication an article that resumes the same research topic in more than one journal.
Sending the same material to several journals is unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
Source recognition
Authors must accurately cite the publications from which they have been documented for the realization of the work.
Information obtained privately, such as from conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used without the written permission of the source.
The legal responsibility for plagiarism belongs entirely to the author(s)
Plagiarism is an unacceptable behavior and is a very good reason for rejecting any article.
Fundamental errors in published works
If the author discovers a material error in the published work, it is incumbent on him to promptly inform the editorial staff in order to correct or withdraw the material.
Disclosures and conflict of interest
All authors must specify in their works any conflict of interest (for example: employment, consultancy, paid testimony of experts, applications, or registrations of patent, subsidies or other funding).
Authorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the design, design, development, and interpretation of the study.
If more than one author contributed significantly to the work, then they must be mentioned as co-authors or, if they had a smaller contribution, as collaborators.The author must ensure that all co-authors are listed in the work and that they have seen and approved the final version of the work and have accepted its submission for publication.
OPEN REVIEW POLICY
(inter pares)
of Moldovan Journal of Health Sciences
The Journal of Health Sciences of Moldova (MJHS) is a biannual open access publication that supports scientific research in the field of medical sciences.
The editorial policy and ethical standards of MJHS are based on international editorial norms and recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as those from the Publishing Ethics Resources Kit for editors (PERK), but also on the provisions of the Strategy for strengthening the field of Research and Innovation in the State University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Nicolae Testemițanu" of the Republic of Moldova 2020-2030, approved by Senate Decision no. 5/1 of May 28, 2020, to the Strategy for Open Science of the Public Institution of the State University of Medicine and Pharmacy "Nicolae Testemițanu" of the Republic of Moldova for the period 2021-2026, approved by Senate decision 11/2 of 25.11.2021.
Peer review is an essential element of the scientific publishing process that helps ensure that research articles are evaluated, critiqued, and improved before they are released to the academic community. Peer Review is the evaluation of work by colleagues, who are people with comparable experience and competence. Colleagues evaluate each other's work in educational environments, in professional environments and in the publishing world. The goal of peer review is to improve quality, define and maintain standards, and help people learn from each other. In the context of scientific publishing, peer review helps the editor determine which submissions are worth publishing and improves the quality of manuscripts before their final release. Open peer review can be defined as "any academic review mechanism that provides for the disclosure of the identities of the author and referee to each other at any time during the peer review or publication process."
The types of peer reviews for manuscripts are: 1) Single-blind review: reviewers know the identities of the authors, but the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers; 2) Double-blind review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other; 3) Open peer review: the identities of both authors and reviewers are revealed, promoting transparency and collaboration. The Journal of Health Sciences of Moldova (MJHS) evaluates manuscripts according to the "Open Peer Review" model. The correct selection of a group of colleagues improves the outcome of the process.
Key elements of the Peer Review (inter pares):
Expertise: Appraisers must have adequate knowledge and experience in the relevant field to provide constructive feedback.
Objectivity: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript impartially and without personal bias.
Confidentiality: The peer review process maintains confidentiality to protect intellectual property and encourage honest feedback.
Timeliness: Evaluators provide feedback within a reasonable timeframe to ensure timely publication.
Stages of the peer review process
The typical peer review process for scientific publications involves the following steps:
Submission: Authors submit their manuscript to a journal that aligns with their research theme.
Editorial evaluation: The journal editor reviews the manuscript and determines whether or not it is suitable for publication. If it is not, the manuscript is rejected.
Peer review: If appropriate, the editor sends the article to peer reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
Feedback from reviewers: Reviewers provide feedback, criticism, and suggestions for improvement.
Review and resubmission: Authors address feedback and make necessary revisions before resubmitting the manuscript.
Final Decision: The editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the revised version and reviewer comments.
Publication: If accepted, the manuscript undergoes copying and formatting before being published in the journal.
The functions of MJHS can be summarized as follows: (1) to prioritize scientists, (2) to make original results public, (3) to ensure quality assurance, (4) to ensure the archiving of research.
Open peer review can make reviewers' reports public, instead of revealing them only to the authors of the article. This may include publishing the rest of the peer review history, i.e. authors' responses and editors' recommendations. Most often, this refers only to articles that are accepted for publication, and not to those that are rejected.
Open peer review can be defined as allowing self-selected reviewers to comment on an article, rather than (or besides) having reviewers who are selected by the editors. This assumes that the text of the article is openly accessible. Self-selected evaluators may or may not be verified for their basic credentials and can contribute either short comments or full reviews.
Steps to perform peer review of an article (recommendations for reviewers).
In general, the editor will provide guidance when asking the reviewer for an inter peer review of a manuscript, such as:
Accept the right assignment: Accept invitations to review articles that align with your area of expertise to ensure that you can provide well-informed feedback.
Manage your time: Allow enough time to carefully read and evaluate the manuscript while meeting the journal's deadline to provide feedback.
Read the manuscript several times: First, read the manuscript for a general understanding of the research. Then, read it more carefully to evaluate the details, methodology, results, and conclusions.
Evaluate the structure and organization: Check that the manuscript follows the journal's guidelines and is logically structured, with clear titles, subheadings, and a coherent flow of information.
Evaluate the quality of the research: evaluate the research question, study design, methodology, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Consider whether the methods are adequate, the results are valid, and the conclusions are supported by data.
Examine originality and relevance: Determine whether the research offers new insights, builds on existing knowledge, and is relevant to the field.
Check for clarity and consistency: Review the manuscript for clarity of writing, consistent terminology, and correct formatting of figures, tables, and references.
Identify ethical issues: Look for potential ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest.
Provide constructive feedback: Provide specific, actionable, and objective suggestions for improvement, highlighting both the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Don't be mean.
Organize your review: Structure your review with an overview of your review, followed by detailed comments and suggestions organized into sections (e.g., introduction, methods, results, discussions, and conclusions).
Be professional and respectful: Keep a respectful tone in your feedback, avoiding personal criticism or derogatory language.
Check your review: Before submitting your review, check it for typographical errors, grammar, and clarity.
DOI, UDC, XML
The Digital Objective Identifier (DOI) is provided by CrossRef (www.crossref.org) with the support of Information Society Development Institute (www.idsi.md) of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova.
Extensible Markup Language (XML) format is provided by Information Society Development Institute (www.idsi.md) of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova.
The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) code is provided by the Scientific Medical Library of Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy of the Republic of Moldova (www.library.usmf.md).
Equal Rights Guarantee
The Editorial Board evaluates the manuscripts for their intellectual content without any regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
The Moldovan Journal of Health Sciences requires the authors to provide a statement identifying the ethics committee that approved the study, and that the study conforms to recognized standards, for example: Declaration of Helsinki or European Medicines Agency Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice.
The ethics and malpractice guidelines of the journal are described in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and based on:
- Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors made up by the Committee on Publication Ethics (www.publicationethics.org).
- World Association of Medical Editors principles (www.wame.org).
- Uniform Manuscript Requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org).
- National Ethics Committee Standards of the Republic of Moldova (http://lex.justice.md/md/362783/).
The Moldovan Journal of Health Sciences follows the COPE, WAME and ICMJE recommendations
Open Access Statement
Moldovan Journal of Health Sciences (MJHS) is committed to real and immediate open access for scientific and academic work, that supports the Open Access Policy based on Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing, released June 20, 2003.
All of our articles are free to access immediately from the date of publication. We do not charge our authors any fees for publication or processing, nor do we charge readers to download articles.
MJHS is free to all at any time and in perpetuity. Thus, we depend upon the financial underwriting provided to the authors by the Nicolae Testemițanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, the goodwill of our editorial team, and the continuing support of our network of peer reviewers.
Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author as long as they cite the source. This is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access.