Publication Ethics

Responsibilities 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. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with a paper and retain such data for at least two years after publication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality, plagiarism, and concurrent publication
Authors should ensure their work is entirely original and that any work and/or words of others have been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting essentially the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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.

Authorship of the paper
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in 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. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Responsibilities of Editors

Publication decisions
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. Members of the board confer and refer to reviewer recommendations in making this decision, constrained by legal requirements related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.

Confidentiality, disclosure, and conflicts of interest
During the review process, editors must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's, reviewer’s, or any other reader’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Readers should be informed about who has funded the research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Author relations
Editors strive to ensure that peer review at the journal is fair, unbiased, and timely. The journal has established policies for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review. Author instructions provide guidance about the criteria for authorship.

Reviewer relations
The Journal encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, and inappropriate data manipulation), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers’ comments should be sent to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks. Contributions of reviewers to the journal are regularly acknowledged and cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality, or late reviews.

Quality assurance
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that different sections have different aims and standards. Editors should seek assurances that the research they publish has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publishers to handle potential breaches of laws and conventions. Errors, inaccurate, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.

Editors are responsible for making publication decisions by evaluating submissions in consultation with reviewers and the editorial board, ensuring decisions are guided by legal requirements and free from bias related to authors’ nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion. They must maintain strict confidentiality during the review process, avoid using unpublished material for personal research without written consent, and disclose funding sources and their role in the research. Editors should foster fair, unbiased, and timely peer review, implement policies for handling submissions from board members, and provide clear authorship guidelines. They are expected to encourage reviewers to identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, and redundant publication, share reviewer comments with authors (excluding offensive remarks), and acknowledge reviewers’ contributions while discontinuing those who provide poor or discourteous reviews. To uphold quality, editors must ensure published research meets ethical standards, has appropriate approvals, and address intellectual property issues, correcting errors promptly and prominently when identified.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Qualification of reviewers
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. 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.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas of others 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.

Reviewers play a vital role in supporting editorial decisions by providing objective, constructive, and clearly reasoned feedback that helps authors improve their work, avoiding any personal criticism. They should decline review requests if they feel unqualified or unable to complete the review promptly and must not review manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions. All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential, and any privileged information or ideas obtained through the process must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers are expected to identify relevant published work not cited by the authors, ensure proper attribution of ideas, and alert editors to any significant overlap or similarity between the manuscript and other published papers known to them.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

BM-Publisher Ltd., United Kingdom, supports AJBM in maintaining academic independence, editorial integrity, and ethical management. The publisher ensures that:

• policies are transparent and accessible,
• misconduct allegations are handled according to COPE standards,
• corrections or retractions are issued when required,
• published content is preserved in digital archives.

Handling of Alleged Misconduct

AJBM follows COPE flowcharts for investigation of:

• plagiarism,
• data manipulation,
• duplication or redundant publication,
• ethical breaches in authorship or research conduct.

Actions may include rejection, retraction, institutional notification, or sanctions, depending on severity.

Plagiarism Screening

The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism. Using others’ ideas, words, or work without proper acknowledgment is strictly prohibited. Submissions containing any form of plagiarism—whether in whole or in part, will be rejected. This includes:

•  Duplicate or redundant publication
• Self-plagiarism, whether in the same or a different language

Please note that posting a manuscript on a preprint archive is not considered duplicate publication.

The corresponding author bears full responsibility for the manuscript throughout the evaluation and publication process and is authorized to act on behalf of all co-authors.

All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using professional plagiarism-detection software. Manuscripts with an unacceptable similarity index due to plagiarism will be immediately rejected.

The journal follows COPE guidelines in handling plagiarism cases. Any manuscript found to contain plagiarized material will not be considered for publication under any circumstances.

Corrections, Retractions & Expressions of Concern

When errors or misconduct affect the reliability of published work, AJBM issues:

• Corrections for factual errors that do not invalidate findings,
• Retractions for seriously flawed or unethical work,
• Expressions of concern when investigation is ongoing.

Retractions remain permanently accessible and linked to original articles.

Research Ethics, Studies Involving Humans, Animals, and Plants

All original research papers involving humans, animals, plants, biological materials, protected or non-public datasets, collections, or sites must include an Ethics Approval section containing:

• The name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s) involved
• The approval number or ID
• A statement confirming that human participants provided informed consent prior to participation

Research Involving Animals
Research involving animals must comply with ethical standards for animal welfare. All original research papers involving animals must:

• Follow international, national, and institutional guidelines for humane treatment
• Obtain approval from an ethics review committee at the institution or practice where the research was conducted, and provide details including committee name(s) and approval number or ID
• Justify the use of animals and the species selected
• Provide information on housing, feeding, environmental enrichment, and measures taken to minimize suffering
• Specify the mode of anesthesia and euthanasia used
  Research that does not meet these ethical requirements will be rejected.

Research involving humans
If the study involves human participants, authors must ensure that the research was conducted in compliance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. Manuscripts should adhere to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals strive to include representative human populations (considering sex, age, and ethnicity) as per these guidelines. The terms sex and gender must be used accurately and appropriately.

All research protocols must have prior approval from the authors’ institutional or relevant ethics committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) to confirm compliance with national and international standards. Details of this approval—including the institution name, ethics committee name, and approval number(s)—must be provided at the time of submission. Ethics approval must be obtained before the research begins; retrospective approval is generally not accepted and may prevent publication.

Authors must include a clear statement in the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained from all human participants. The privacy and confidentiality rights of participants must always be respected.

Research involving animals
All animal experiments must comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and be conducted in accordance with recognized standards, such as:

The U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986 and associated guidelines

EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes

The National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals 

Authors must clearly state in the manuscript that these guidelines were followed. The sex of the animals should be reported, and where relevant, the potential influence or association of sex on study outcomes should be addressed.

Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must adhere to the ethical requirements of the authors’ institution and applicable national or international regulations. Where relevant, include a statement confirming ethics approval or animal licenses.

In all cases, authors must confirm that every effort was made to minimize animal suffering and provide details of the measures taken to achieve this.

Studies in humans and animals
For studies involving human subjects, authors must ensure compliance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association  (Declaration of Helsinki). Manuscripts should adhere to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and strive to include representative populations (sex, age, and ethnicity) as outlined in these guidelines. The terms sex and gender should be used accurately.

Authors must include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.

For animal research, experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines  and relevant regulations, including the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments, or the National Research Council’s Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors should clearly state in the manuscript that these standards were followed. The sex of animals must be reported, and, where applicable, the potential influence or association of sex on study outcomes should be addressed.

Informed consent (Read Ethical Approval Section)
Patients have a fundamental right to privacy, which must not be violated without their informed consent. Identifiable information—such as names, initials, or hospital numbers—should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless it is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or their parent or guardian) has provided written informed consent for publication.

Informed consent requires that the identifiable patient review the manuscript prior to publication. Authors must inform patients if any potentially identifiable material will be accessible online as well as in print after publication. Written consent should be obtained and archived by the journal, the authors, or both, in accordance with local regulations or laws.

Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. If there is any doubt about maintaining anonymity, informed consent must be obtained. For example, masking the eye region in patient photographs does not adequately protect anonymity. If identifying characteristics are modified to preserve anonymity—such as in genetic pedigrees, authors must confirm, and editors should note, that these alterations do not distort scientific meaning. When informed consent has been obtained, this should be clearly stated in the published article..

Competing Interests & Funding Disclosure

All authors must declare financial and non-financial competing interests, such as paid consultancies, grants, employment, or personal relationships. Reviewers and editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflict exists.