OPEN ACCESS POLICY
The Cardiologist 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. However please also see our copyright statement.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in The Cardiologist, the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution Unported” license. This license allows full use, and reuse rights to everyone, as long as the work is attributed to the original authors
The journal is published Semiannually in January and July.
The Cardiologist and its publisher Jomard Publishing, LLC adhere to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follow the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. The journal also follows recommendations contained in A Guide for Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Managing Editors. The journal and the publisher expect that authors, peer reviewers and editors follow best practices of ethical behavior contained therein. Most important points are presented below, but it is advisable to refer to original documents above.
Editors evaluate manuscripts submitted to the journal based solely on their merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, and clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The editor-in-chief has full authority over the entire journal’s content and the timing of its publication.
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, peer reviewers, potential peer reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unless explicitly permitted by the authors in writing, editors and members of the editorial board will not use any unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript or ideas obtained as a result of handling the manuscript for their own purposes and advantage.
Editors will choose not to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by experts in the field. The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and legal requirements. The editor-in-chief may consult other editors or reviewers in making decisions.
Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper, even if the issue is discovered years after publication.
Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the manuscript due to the conflict of interests should promptly notify the editors and decline the invitation.
Reviewers should formulate their statements clearly in a sound and reasoned way so that authors can use reviewer’s arguments to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors must be avoided. Reviewers should indicate in a review
- any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors;
- anything that has been reported in previous publications and not given appropriate reference or citation;
- any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should treat the contents of the manuscript under review as strictly confidential, not to be disclosed to others prior to publication. A reviewer should not use or share with others material from a manuscript he/she has reviewed. Nor should a reviewer distribute copies of a manuscript under review, unless it has been made public. Reviewers will not use any unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript or ideas obtained as a result of handling the manuscript for their own purposes and advantage. Conflicts of Interests.
Reviewers are requested to inform the editor of any conflicts of interest in reviewing a manuscript. Such conflicts of interest can occur if the reviewer is asked to referee a paper written by a colleague of the same organization, former or current student, former advisor, or closely-related person. Another type of conflict occurs, for example, when the reviewer is a direct competitor of the author of the paper for a grant. If the conflict is severe, the reviewer should recuse himself/herself. AUTHORS
Authors must ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works. If authors have used the work, information, or words by others, this must be appropriately cited. Authors should not copy entirely or in part any work or manuscripts by others and submit as the author's own. Copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution) must be excluded. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Duplicate publications, redundant publication, text recycling, and self-plagiarism are also inappropriate practices and should be avoided. Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.
Only persons who meet authorship criteria indicated below should be listed as authors of the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content:
- made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study;
- drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
- have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.
All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as authors, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest
that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, and copyright permissions. Authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or retract the manuscript or article. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. POLICY OF SCREENING FOR PLAGIARISM
Papers submitted to The Cardiologist
will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Apart from that we check with Copyscape for plagiarism. The Cardiologist
will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Plagiarism
Adapted from Bella H. Plagiarism. Saudi J Med MedSci 2014;2:127
Available from: http://www.sjmms.net/text.asp?2014/2/2/127/137015
"Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format. Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and should be addressed as such.
Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can sue before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of ideas and words of other individuals. If journals have developed a policy on this matter, it should be clearly stated for authors."
Direct plagiarism is the plagiarism of the text. Mosaic plagiarism is the borrowing of ideas and opinions from an original source and a few verbatim words or phrases without crediting the author.
Authors can adhere to the following steps to report plagiarism:
- Inform the editor of the journal where a plagiarized article is published.
- Send original and plagiarized articles with plagiarized part highlighted.
- If evidence of plagiarism is convincing, editor should arrange for a disciplinary meeting.
- Editor of the journal where the plagiarized article should communicate with the editor of the journal containing the original article to rectify the matter.
- The plagiarist should be asked to provide an explanation.
- In case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article should be permanently retracted.
- Author should be blacklisted and debarred for submitted an article to a particular journal for at least 5 years.
- The concerned head of the institution has to be notified.
Plagiarism could be detected using Google search engine or one of two programs; iThenticate