Journal of Medical Sciences and Health (JMSH) Committee

JMSH Ownership

Journal owned by Adichunchanagiri Institute of Medical Scineces, BG Nagara.

JMSH follow the guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor

JMSH Editorial staff

1. Editors are ultimately accountable for the quality of their journal’s content.
2. Editors are responsible for identifying important ‘hot topics’, sourcing high quality manuscripts, handling day-to-day paperwork, and organizing the flow of manuscripts (i.e. from author to referees and back and finally to the publisher).
3. The two most important attributes of a good editor are (1) having a detailed knowledge of the subject area and (2) being organized.
4. Depending on the size of the journal, the number of editors can range from one or two people to many more.

Common roles and responsibilities of JMSH editors include: 

1. Editor-in-Chief:

• The most senior editor who has overall responsibility for the journal.

2. Associate editor:

• A managing editor who commissions articles; coordinates peer review; liaises with authors, reviewers and board members; writes short editorials, news and research highlights, and carries out heavy developmental/technical editing of manuscripts.

3. Manuscript editor

• An editor responsible for lighter copyediting of manuscripts.

4. Web editor

• Responsible for the online content.

Editor Responsibilities toward Authors

1. Providing guidelines to authors for preparing and submitting manuscripts
2. Providing a clear statement of the Journal’s policies on authorship criteria
3. Treating all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency
4. Establishing and defining policies on conflicts of interest for all involved in the publication process, including editors, staff (e.g., editorial and sales), authors, and reviewers
5. Protecting the confidentiality of every author’s work
6. Establishing a system for effective and rapid peer review
7. Making editorial decisions with reasonable speed and communicating them in a clear and constructive manner
8. Being vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspect reasons
9. Establishing clear guidelines for authors regarding acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information, particularly those required to replicate the research, before and after publication
10. Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions
11. Describing, implementing, and regularly reviewing policies for handling ethical issues and allegations or findings of misconduct by authors and anyone involved in the peer review process.
12. Informing authors of solicited manuscripts that the submission will be evaluated according to the journal’s standard procedures or outlining the decision-making process if it differs from those procedures
13. Developing mechanisms, in cooperation with the publisher, to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts.
14. Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards

Ensuring adherence to the following trial registration or reporting guidelines:

1. Registration information for clinical trials
2. Adherence to the CONSORT statement, which helps standardize reports of randomized trials.
3. The use of the STARD flow diagram and checklist for reporting diagnostic tests.
4. Compliance with MOOSE guidelines for reporting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies.
5. Adherence to STROBE checklists for the reporting cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional observational studies.
6. Adherence to QUOROM guidelines for reporting meta-analyses and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials.
7. Adherence to the MIAME standards for reporting microarray experiments.
8. Adherence to any discipline-specific standards for data sharing and/or open access archiving.
9. A resource that provides information about many of the reporting guidelines is the EQUATOR network.

Editor Responsibilities toward Reviewers

1. Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise
2. Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly
3. Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication
4. Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work
5. Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review
6. Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews
7. Requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer
8. Finding ways to recognize the contributions of reviewers, for example, by publicly thanking them in the journal; providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion; offering professional education credits; or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal

Editor Responsibilities toward Readers and the Scientific Community

1. Evaluating all manuscripts considered for publication to make certain that each provides the evidence readers need to evaluate the authors’ conclusions and that authors’ conclusions reflect the evidence provided in the manuscript
2. Providing literature references and author contact information so interested readers may pursue further discourse
3. Identifying individual and group authorship clearly and developing processes to ensure that authorship criteria are met to the best of the editor’s knowledge
4. Requiring all authors to review and accept responsibility for the content of the final draft of each paper or for those areas to which they have contributed; this may involve signatures of all authors or of only the corresponding author on behalf of all authors. Some journals ask that one author be the guarantor and take responsibility for the work as a whole
5. Maintaining the journal’s internal integrity (e.g., correcting errors; clearly identifying and differentiating types of content, such as reports of original data, opinion pieces [e.g., editorials and letters to the editor], corrections/errata, retractions, supplemental data, and promotional material or advertising; and identifying published material with proper references)
6. Ensuring that all involved in the publication process understand that it is inappropriate to manipulate citations by, for example, demanding that authors cite papers in the journal
7. Disclosing sources (e.g., authorship, journal ownership, and funding)
8. Creating mechanisms to determine if the journal is providing what readers need and want (e.g., reader surveys)
9. Disclosing all relevant potential conflicts of interest of those involved in considering a manuscript or affirming that none exist. Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the Council of Science Editors (CSE) website.
10. Providing a mechanism for a further discussion on the scientific merits of a paper, such as by publishing letters to the editor, inviting commentaries, article blogs, or soliciting other forms of public discourse
11. Explicitly stating journal policies regarding ethics, embargo, submission and publication fees, and accessibility of content (freely available versus subscriber only)
12. Working with the publisher to attract the best manuscripts and research that will be of interest to readers
13. In some instances, a publisher may put pressure on an editor to publish a review or article in an effort to increase reprint sales. The editor has a responsibility to readers and the scientific community to resist such pressure.

Depending upon the relationship between the editor and publisher for particular journals, some of the roles and responsibilities between the two may overlap

Editor Responsibilities toward Journal Owners/Publishers

1. Conducting peer review of submitted manuscripts
2. Complying with the guidelines and procedures of the owner organization, including any terms specified in the contract with that organization
3. Making recommendations about improved evaluation and dissemination of scientific material
4. Adhering to the owner’s and publisher’s fiscal policies towards the Journal, at least in so much as they do not encroach upon editorial independence
5. Adhering to the agreed-upon mission, publication practices, and schedule

Editor Responsibilities toward Confidentiality

1. Editors, and all editorial and publication staff keeps all information about a submitted manuscript confidential, sharing it only with those involved in the evaluation, review, and publication processes.
2. Editors therefore will not share information about manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Nor will they discuss content publicly prior to acceptance and publication.
3. JMSH Editors agree to defend the confidentiality of authors and peer-reviewers (names and reviewer comments) in accordance withICMJE policy. Editors agree to take all reasonable steps to check the facts in journal commentary and to adhere to best journalistic practices.
4. Editors will not publish or publicise peer review comments without permission of the reviewer and author. For our journals with mandatory open peer review, permission is provided by submitting your review to the journal. If a journal’s policy is to blind authors to reviewer identity, that identity will not be revealed to the author or anyone else without the reviewer’s expressed written permission.
5. Confidentiality may have to be breached if an allegation of dishonesty or fraud is made, but Editors agree to only notify authors or reviewers if they intend to do so and confidentiality must otherwise be honoured.
6. Confidential information will not be used for an Editor’s own purposes, and Editors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that such information is not used inappropriately for the advantage of others. In cases of breach of confidentiality by those involved in the peer-review process, Editors agree to contact the involved parties and follow up on such cases until they are satisfactorily resolved.

JMSH Editorial Boards

It providing expert advice on content, attracting new authors and encouraging submissions.

The Editorial Board, or (Editorial) Advisory Board, is a team of experts in the journal’s field. Editorial board members:

1. Review submitted manuscripts.
2. Advise on journal policy and scope.
3. Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.
4. Attract new authors and submissions.
5. Promote the journal to their colleagues and peers.
6. Assist the editor(s) in decision making over issues such as plagiarism claims and submissions where reviewers can’t agree on a decision.

Objectives of the JMSH editorial board

Aside from providing prestige, the role of the editorial board is to advise and support the editor.

Functions of JMSH editorial board:

1. Identifying new topics for commissions, special editions and advising on direction for the journal—giving feedback on past issues and making suggestions for both subject matter and potential authors
2. Provide content by writing occasional editorials and short articles
3. Approaching potential contributors
4. Peer review; also help to identify peer reviewers and provide second opinions on papers, if there is a conflict between reviewers
5. Identify appropriate conferences for editors to attend
6. Endorse the journal to authors, readers and subscribers and encourage colleagues to submit their best work.

Recruiting JMSH board members

Editorial board members must be peers whose judgement is highly regarded within the journal’s main discipline; or their decisions may not be regarded as valid. Publication number and academic aptitude are the top factors for editorial board membership.

Identifying potential candidates

1. Potential candidates might be recruited from authors or peer reviewers that have worked for your journal or from recommendations by other board members.
2. When recruiting potential board members, it is useful to provide them with a brief description of the role, outlining the responsibilities, and clearly stating that this is a voluntary position with no remuneration related to the post.
3. A good working relationship is needed between the editorial board and the journal. The board works for the journal. It is worthwhile nominating people to the board for a period of time, which is renewable depending upon performance.
4. A term of office of three years is fairly normal for many journals. You should maintain an up-to-date list of board members, including their particular areas of expertise, and keep notes on how useful they have been in the past.

Internationalizing JMSH board

1. Expansion of editorial boards between disciplines and there is no perfect number, but what is particularly important is to globalize your editorial board as much as possible to promote the journal across multiple regions, including developing countries.

Editorial board meetings

1. Editorial board meetings are useful opportunities to meet with some or all of the editorial board members to brief them on issues, take questions and also gain ideas for policies and upcoming journal editions. They can be done face to face, or via telephone or video conferencing.
2. Where board meetings are not possible, try to arrange to meet with board members on an individual basis at conferences or other events.
3. Meeting board members is a key way of networking and building and strengthening the relationship with your editorial board.