Editorial Policies

Editorial Policies

Papers are accepted on the condition that the authors have adhered to all ethical guidelines for the production and publication of biomedical manuscripts. The journal's website has a list of practices that are considered unethical. The author/s are responsible for all comments made in their work and should be prepared to defend them publicly if they are questioned. Authors should follow the instructions in the journal's submission guidelines while preparing their submissions. Manuscripts that do not adhere to the journal's format and style may be returned to the authors for revision or will be rejected. In an article accepted for publication, the journal reserves the right to make any additional formal adjustments and linguistic corrections that are required. Manuscripts and figures are not returned to authors, even if the work is rejected.

Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice

The JCRAM' Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based in large part on the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) rules and standards. The following are the responsibilities and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal.


By submitting a manuscript to JCRAM, the author(s) guarantee that it is their own, original work that has never been published before and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. They also guarantee that any ideas and/or words in the text that are not their own have been appropriately credited through citations and/or quotes.

In most cases, an author should avoid publishing submissions reporting essentially the same study in various publications or venues. Such repeated publication is typically regarded as unethical publishing activity, and if discovered, may result in the rejection of a submission under consideration or the retraction of a previously published piece.

Authors of manuscripts reporting on original research should give an accurate explanation of the work done, as well as a critical assessment of its relevance. The article should appropriately portray the underlying data. The paper should provide enough information and references to allow others to duplicate the work. Fabricating results and producing fraudulent or willfully inaccurate statements are unethical practices that can lead to a manuscript or a published article being rejected or retracted.

When the paper discusses commercial software, hardware, or other products, the authors must add a declaration at the start of the publication stating whether or not there is a conflict of interest and describing the nature of any potential conflict. The manuscript should also include a list of all sources of financial support for the research.

The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in JCRAM, the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike” license. This license allows the author(s) to retain the copyright but also allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.

Authors are responsible for getting written permission to use any photos or artwork in their articles for which they do not have copyright, or for adapting any such images or artwork for use in their articles. The image(s) or artwork must be made expressly aware that they will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons "Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike" licence.

The names of the authors should be listed in the article in the order in which they contributed to it, and each author is responsible for their own contributions. Only those who have made a significant contribution should be listed as authors; those who have made a minor or indirect contribution (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed draughts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be listed in a “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the R&D section.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in one of his or her articles published in JCRAM, he or she owes it to the editors to contact them as soon as possible and work with them to rectify or retract the piece as needed.


Reviewers for the JCRAM work for the journal as volunteers. Given that the majority of these people work full-time, reviewing for JCRAM cannot be their first priority. Reviewers are entitled to decline requests to examine certain manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if their present employment responsibilities and/or other commitments prevent them from completing a review in a timely manner and doing justice to the assignment within the term given. They should also refuse manuscript review jobs for which they are unsure about their expertise.

Reviewers who have been assigned to a manuscript are usually expected to complete their reviews within three weeks. They should withdraw from the project if it becomes clear at any point that they lack the necessary expertise to conduct the review or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in conducting the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript).

Reviewers' access to confidential information or ideas received through the peer review process must be kept private and not utilised for personal gain. Manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential papers, and they must not be viewed or discussed with anyone else unless the JCRAM Editor has given permission.

Reviewers are asked to conduct their reviews as objectively as possible, refraining from making personal attacks on the author (s). They are urged to articulate themselves clearly and to explain and defend any recommendations they make. Even if the manuscript is not publishable in their perspective, they should make every effort to provide specific and helpful input to aid the author(s) in improving their work.

Reviewers should note in their reviews any relevant published work that the author(s) hasn't cited, as well as any occasions where correct attribution of sources hasn't been provided. They should alert the relevant editor to any significant similarities between the manuscript under review and other published articles or papers that they are aware of, as well as any ethical issues they may have about the research contained in the manuscript.


The Editor is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not a manuscript submitted to JCRAM should be published, and in doing so is guided by the journal's policies as determined by the JCRAM editorial board, as well as any applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism at the time. In making publication decisions, the Editor may consult with the Associate Editor and other members of the editing team, as well as reviewers.

The editors will assess manuscripts on the basis of their intellectual content, regardless of the author's race, colour, gender, sexual orientation, religious views, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy (s). They will not reveal any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone except the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and, in some cases, members of the JCRAM editorial board. Furthermore, the editors will make every effort to maintain the blind review process' integrity by not disclosing the name of an article's author(s) to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa.

In addition to standard criteria such as the rigour of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to humanity's stock of knowledge, editors will look for evidence that ethical harms were minimised during the conduct of the reported research when evaluating it for publication. They will debate if the benefits of this particular study outweigh the risks. Because the JCRAM encourages manuscript submissions from all countries, it is important to note that laws and regulations governing research ethics and ethical approval differ from country to country. As a result, the editors may need to clarify this with the author(s) and require that they provide a letter from the appropriate institutional ethics committee or board approving the research.

When it comes to withdrawing, issuing expressions of concern over, and issuing revisions for publications published in JCRAM, the editors shall follow COPE's Guidelines for Retracting Articles. They are committed to collaborating closely with research organisations and institutions in accordance with COPE's guidelines on Research Integrity Case Cooperation between Research Institutions and Journals.

This link provides more information on the Code of Conduct and guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines