The International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research (IJMABHR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and taking all possible measures against publication malpractice. This policy describes the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publishing process — editors, peer reviewers, authors, and the publisher — and forms part of the journal's editorial policy.

This policy is designed to meet internationally recognised transparency and ethics standards expected of reputable scholarly journals, so that the journal's editorial and publishing practices remain suitable for evaluation by any indexing, abstracting, or scholarly database service. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to be familiar with, and abide by, this policy.

IJMABHR follows the Core Practices and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and aligns its editorial and publishing procedures with the widely recognised Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing followed by reputable scholarly publishers and associations, including the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). 

The full names, institutional affiliations, and country of each member of the Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief are published on the journal's website and are kept up to date. Every listed member has agreed to serve in that capacity. The composition of the board is reviewed periodically to confirm its members remain active and appropriate to the journal's stated aims and scope, and that they are recognised experts in the subject areas the journal covers. Full contact information for the editorial office, including a mailing address, is published on the journal's website.

The journal's ISSN(s), aims and scope, target readership, accepted manuscript types, and authorship criteria are clearly published on the journal's website, together with its publishing schedule, which the journal keeps to except in exceptional, disclosed circumstances. 

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on their academic merit — including importance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity — as well as their relevance to the journal's scope. Editorial decisions are made without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religious beliefs, political views, or institutional affiliation, and are not influenced by external factors such as government policy or the interests of other agencies. The Editor-in-Chief holds full authority over the editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication.

Editors and editorial staff will 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.

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a manuscript for their own research without the authors' explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through handling a manuscript will be kept confidential and never used for personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any author, institution, or company involved — in such cases, another member of the editorial board will handle the manuscript instead.

Every submitted manuscript is peer-reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief decides which manuscripts are published, based on the validity of the work, its importance to researchers and readers, reviewers' feedback, and relevant legal requirements — including matters of libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult other editors or reviewers before reaching a decision. Journal staff, editors, and reviewers do not guarantee acceptance of a manuscript at the point of submission, and editorial decisions are never influenced by author fee status, or other commercial revenue.

IJMABHR operates a double-blind peer review process: the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout the review. Peer review is conducted by external subject-matter experts who are not members of the journal's editorial staff; members of the Editorial Board may also be invited to review where their expertise is directly relevant.

Every submission is first subjected to an editorial desk assessment for scope, originality, and basic quality; manuscripts that pass this stage are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Final decisions — accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject — rest with the Editor-in-Chief, informed by reviewer recommendations. Typical timeframes for first decision are stated on the journal's website and in author correspondence; where a delay occurs, authors are informed of the reason and may request withdrawal. The date of submission, acceptance, and publication is recorded and published with each article.

Editors take appropriate action in response to any ethical concern raised about a manuscript or published article. Allegations of unethical publishing behaviour are investigated regardless of when they are discovered, following the COPE flowcharts for handling suspected misconduct. Where a concern is substantiated, corrective action — such as a correction, retraction, or expression of concern — is published promptly in the journal.

Peer review assists editors in making decisions on manuscript publication and helps authors improve their work through constructive feedback. Peer review is central to scholarly communication, and IJMABHR expects every reviewer to engage in fair, impartial, and rigorous evaluation.

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, should notify the editors immediately and decline the invitation so that an alternative reviewer can be found.

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must not be shown to, or discussed with, anyone other than the Editor-in-Chief, unless the editors grant permission under exceptional circumstances. This obligation applies equally to reviewers who decline the invitation to review.

Reviews should be conducted impartially and expressed clearly, with well-reasoned, constructive arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and will not be tolerated.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have failed to cite. Any statement based on prior observation, derivation, or argument must be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also alert the editors to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published or unpublished work they are aware of.

Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or companies connected to a manuscript must disclose this and decline the review. Unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript must never be used in a reviewer's own research without the authors' express written consent.

Authors of original research must present an accurate account of the work performed along with an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately, and the manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data underlying a manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make such data publicly accessible where feasible, retaining it for a reasonable period after publication (at least ten years), while protecting the confidentiality of any participants. Where authors deposit data in a public repository, the manuscript should include the relevant accession number or a data-availability statement describing how the data can be accessed. Sufficient methodological detail must be provided to allow independent reproduction of the reported results.

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work, and that any use of the work or words of others is appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable; manuscripts found to contain plagiarised content will be rejected.

An author should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal for concurrent consideration, and manuscripts already published elsewhere should not be resubmitted. Secondary publication may be acceptable under limited circumstances, provided both editors consent and the primary source is clearly acknowledged.

IJMABHR follows the ICMJE authorship criteria. Authorship should be based on all four of the following conditions: (1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; (2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria, and all who meet all four criteria should be identified as authors. Individuals who contributed in other ways but do not meet all four criteria should be listed in an "Acknowledgments" section, with their consent, describing their specific contribution. The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria and have approved the final manuscript, and for keeping co-authors informed throughout submission, revision, and publication. Any change to authorship after submission requires a written statement of agreement from all authors, including those being added or removed.

All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the work. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed, including grant numbers where applicable.

Authors must ensure proper acknowledgment of the work of others and must cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used without explicit, written permission from the source.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that carry unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Where the research involves human participants, authors must confirm that the study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and had received prior approval from an appropriately constituted research ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB); the name of the approving body and the approval/reference number must be stated in the manuscript. Studies involving animals must comply with relevant institutional, national, and international standards for the ethical use of animals in research, with the approving body identified. Where informed consent was required, authors must confirm it was obtained, and, for identifiable patient information or images, written consent must be confirmed and available on request. Prospective clinical trials should be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry before enrolment of the first participant, and the registry name and registration number should be included in the manuscript.

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and to cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and evidence of ethics approval. In the case of a first decision requiring revisions, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal and cooperate with the editors to correct, retract, or otherwise amend the article as required.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies do not meet the journal's criteria for authorship and cannot be listed as an author or co-author, nor can they be credited with corresponding-author responsibilities. Authors who use AI or AI-assisted tools in the writing, data analysis, image generation, or other preparation of a manuscript must disclose this use in the manuscript, including the tool used, its version, and the purpose for which it was used, in sufficient detail to allow readers to understand its role. Authors remain fully responsible and accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the content, including any content produced with the assistance of AI, and must carefully check such content, since AI tools can generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased output. Undeclared or substantive use of AI in place of genuine authorship, analysis, or peer review constitutes a breach of this policy.

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to correct or retract the article in question. This may include the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, where warranted, a retraction. The publisher will work with the editors to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts where research misconduct has occurred, and will under no circumstances knowingly permit such misconduct to continue.

IJMABHR respects the intellectual property rights of authors and third parties. Copyright and licensing terms for published articles are stated clearly on the journal's website and on the full text (HTML and PDF) of every published article, and are kept separate from any copyright notice covering the website itself. Every submitted manuscript is screened using plagiarism-detection software prior to peer review, and any manuscript found to contain substantial unattributed overlap with previously published work, whether by the submitting authors or by others, may be returned to the authors or rejected. Suspected plagiarism identified after publication is reviewed by the journal and may result in a correction or retraction.

IJMABHR follows COPE flowcharts and guidelines when handling allegations of misconduct, including but not limited to:

• Fabrication or falsification of data

• Plagiarism or text recycling

• Duplicate or redundant publication

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest

• Authorship and contributorship disputes

• Image manipulation

• Undisclosed or improper use of AI tools

• Ethical breaches in research involving human or animal subjects

Concerns may be raised by editors, reviewers, authors, readers, or any other party, and will be investigated in strict confidence regardless of when they are discovered, in line with Section 2.6 above. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the authors' institutions or funders as part of an investigation, following COPE guidance.

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision, or any party who wishes to raise a complaint about the conduct of the journal, its editors, reviewers, or published content, may do so in writing to the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact details. Appeals should set out the specific grounds for disagreement with the decision and, where relevant, provide supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief will acknowledge receipt, review the appeal or complaint — consulting an independent editor or reviewer where a conflict of interest exists — and provide a substantive written response within a reasonable timeframe. Unresolved complaints relating to publication ethics may be referred to COPE for guidance.

Where an ethical concern is substantiated following investigation, the journal will publish the appropriate corrective action without delay. This may take the form of a correction (for honest errors that do not undermine the validity of the work), a retraction (where the integrity of the work is fundamentally compromised), or an expression of concern (where an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive). All corrective notices are linked bidirectionally to the original article, are freely accessible, and clearly identify the reason for the action and the date it was issued.

IJMABHR provides readers the opportunity to raise scholarly concerns about published articles by writing to the editorial office. Substantive, well-evidenced comments may be considered for publication as a formal letter or comment linked to the original article, at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, and authors of the original article are normally invited to respond. This mechanism is separate from, and does not replace, the journal's formal misconduct and complaints procedures.

Questions regarding this Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy, or concerns about the ethical conduct of a submission, may be directed to the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Medical and All Body Health Research through the journal's official editorial office.