The ethical policies of the Jundishapur Journal of Physiology are rooted in the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and align with the codes of conduct set by the International Committee of Journal Editorial Boards. Authors, reviewers, readers, and editors are required to adhere to these ethical standards while engaging with the journal. For further details on ethical publishing and guidelines, please refer to https://publicationethics.org/
The publisher should ensure that all editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts are made based on professional judgment alone and are not influenced by commercial interests. The publisher should also supervise the ethical practices of the editor-in-chief, associate editors, editorial board members, reviewers, authors, and readers. The publisher is committed to issuing corrections, clarifications, and retractions when necessary.
Reviewers are required to respect the confidentiality of the information within the submitted article. The review process should be conducted anonymously.
Reviewers should evaluate articles impartially and at an appropriate time, assisting the editorial team in determining whether to accept or reject an article. Their feedback should be submitted in the appropriate format and include comments for both the author and editor.
Reviewers should refrain from reviewing articles where they have a conflict of interest and report any such conflicts immediately. All judgments regarding the article's quality and content should be based on objective and professional standards.
To qualify for authorship of a submitted manuscript, contributors must meet the following three criteria:
Each contributor should have participated in the research to a degree that allows them to take public responsibility for the appropriate portions of the content.
During the submission, peer review, and publication process, the corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal and ensuring that all administrative requirements, including authorship details, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration, and conflict of interest statements, are properly completed. The corresponding author must respond promptly to editorial queries and cooperate with any requests from the journal post-publication.
Once an article has been accepted for publication, no new authors or changes to the list of authors are allowed. If an author wishes to be removed from the byline, they must submit a letter signed by all authors, indicating the request. Changes in the order of authors require consent from all authors through a signed letter.
Authors must follow the journal's formatting guidelines when preparing articles for submission. All authors should read the journal's submission guidelines before submitting their work.
The corresponding author must confirm and submit the consent and knowledge of the other co-authors of the article through the authors' commitment form. All listed authors must have contributed to the article writing and compilation process.
Acknowledgments and organizational affiliations of the authors should be mentioned, and any conflicts of interest between authors or their institutions must be disclosed.
To ensure the sustainability and development of the peer review process, qualified authors may be invited to participate as reviewers for other articles in the journal.
Authors should clearly disclose the sponsor(s) of the research if applicable. They also have the responsibility to notify the editor promptly if any errors or inaccuracies are found in their published article and to request a correction or retraction if necessary.
All authors should be aware that articles submitted to this journal undergo similarity check software reviews to detect potential scientific misconduct. Furthermore, authors must ensure they cite all sources properly, both directly and indirectly.
In rare cases where the scientific content of an article is seriously compromised, a retraction may be issued. The journal will comply with COPE guidelines and ensure that retracted papers are indexed and properly referenced.
The Editor-in-Chief takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of articles that involve research misconduct, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication.
The first action by the journal's Editor is to inform the Editorial Office by providing relevant material and a draft letter to the corresponding author, requesting an explanation in a non-judgmental manner.
If the author’s explanation is deemed unacceptable and it appears that serious unethical behavior has occurred, the issue will be referred to the Publication Committee via the Editorial Office. After careful review, the Committee will determine whether the case is serious enough to warrant a ban on future submissions.
In less severe cases, the Editor, with advice from the Publication Committee, will send the author a formal reprimand and remind them of the journal's publication policies. If the manuscript has already been published, the Editor may request that the author issue an apology to correct the record.
If a violation is detected, the corresponding author will be notified, and any work by the author or any work they have coauthored that is under review by the journal will be immediately rejected.
Authors found responsible for misconduct will be prohibited from serving on the journal's editorial board or acting as reviewers. The journal reserves the right to take additional actions as necessary.
In cases of serious fraud that lead to retraction of the article, a retraction notice will be issued in the journal, and the article will be marked as “retracted” on the online version with the retraction date.
Before submitting a manuscript, authors are strongly encouraged to read all the guidelines and policies regarding the manuscript submission and publication process. The journal views complaints as an opportunity to improve the manuscript processing system.
Authors may file complaints or request clarification regarding misconduct related to policies and ethical guidelines by submitting a letter. Complaints may relate to issues such as plagiarism, copyright violations, deceptive research practices, incorrect results, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or delays in manuscript processing.
Upon receiving a complaint, an acknowledgment letter will be sent to the complainant, assuring that appropriate actions will be taken within a reasonable timeframe. The investigation will be conducted according to the Editor-in-Chief’s guidelines. After the investigation, the final decision will be communicated to the complainant via email.
The editors will accept only one appeal per article. Upon receiving an appeal, the editors may involve the referees and editorial board members who reviewed the manuscript.
The final decision made by the editors and editorial board regarding appeals is binding and may result in manuscript rejection, further peer review requests, or a request for a revised version of the manuscript.
Jundishapur Journal of Physiology is committed to adhering to the guidelines and flowcharts set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its reviewing and publishing processes. For more detailed information about COPE’s guidelines and flowcharts, please visit: COPE Flowcharts.
(https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf),
(https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf)
All published material in Jundishapur Journal of Physiology is under the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief. The Editors must:
Best practices for editors include:
These policies have been introduced due to the growing use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies by content creators. They aim to offer clearer guidance and transparency for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and contributors. Current Journal of Neurology will keep an eye on these developments and update the policies as needed.
This policy refers only to the writing process and not to the use of AI tools for data analysis and insights during research. When authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing, these tools should only enhance readability and language. Human oversight and control are essential, and authors must carefully review and edit the output, as AI can produce authoritative-sounding content that may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible for the content. Authors must disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts, and a statement will appear in the published work. This disclosure supports transparency and trust among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, and ensures compliance with the relevant tool’s terms of use. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship entails responsibilities and tasks that only humans can perform. Each (co-)author is accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work, must approve the final version, and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring the work is original, that the authors qualify for authorship, and that the work does not infringe on third-party rights. Authors should familiarize themselves with the Ethics in Publishing policy before submission.
The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts is not allowed. This includes enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or adding features within an image. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or remove any original information. Image forensics tools may be used to detect irregularities.
The only exception is if AI or AI-assisted tools are part of the research design or methods (e.g., AI-assisted imaging in biomedical research). Such use must be described in the methods section, including details on how the AI tools were used, the model or tool name, version, and manufacturer. Authors must follow the AI software’s usage policies and ensure proper content attribution. Authors may be asked to provide pre-AI-adjusted images or raw images for editorial review.
The use of generative AI for creating graphical abstracts is not permitted. For cover art, generative AI may be allowed with prior permission from the journal editor and publisher, provided all necessary rights are cleared and proper attribution is ensured.
When reviewing a manuscript, it must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not upload any part of the manuscript to generative AI tools, as this may violate confidentiality and proprietary rights, and potentially breach data privacy.
This confidentiality also applies to the peer review report, which may contain sensitive information. Reviewers should not use AI tools to improve the language or readability of their reports.
Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process, requiring human judgment. Generative AI should not be used for scientific review, as it may produce incorrect or biased conclusions. Reviewers are responsible for their review content.
Current Journal of Neurology’s policy allows authors to use AI for language and readability improvements before submission, with proper disclosure. Reviewers can find this disclosure in a separate section before the references.
A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.
This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript, including any notification or decision letters, as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, editors should not upload their letters into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and Current Journal of Neurology abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for this work is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision, and the communication thereof to the authors.
Current Journal of Neurology’s AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in Current Journal of Neurology’s Guide for Authors. Editors can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references. If an editor suspects that an author or a reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the publisher.
Current Journal of Neurology embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors in the editorial process, and we continue to develop and adopt in-house or licensed technologies that respect authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ confidentiality and data privacy rights.