Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

BJ-BABS applied to be a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE’s flowcharts and guidelines are approached in confronting any ethical misbehavior. The Journal also follows the guidelines mentioned in the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).


1. Duties of editors

1.1. Publication decisions

The editor of the BJ-BABS is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

1.2. Fair play

An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

1.3. Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must 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.

1.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.


2. Duties of reviewers

2.1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2.2. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

2.3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2.4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

2.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

2.6. Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


3. Duties of authors

3.1. Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3.2. Data access and retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3.3. Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

3.4. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

3.5. Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

3.6. Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

3.7. Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

3.8. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

3.9. Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

The BJ-BABS rules when the author is an Editor!
The handling of manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members
1- The manuscript is received by the Journal Manager (Editorial Office) and the manuscript ID is assigned (if all technical aspects are according to the Journal’s criteria and iThenticate check similarity index within acceptable range)
2- If the manuscript is authored by the Editor-in-Chief, it is handled by the Editorial Office and Associate Editor (all the comments raised by reviewers will be forwarded to the corresponding author along with the decision letter, see Editor’s Hub)
To avoid any risk of bias in the peer-review, the Editor-in-Chief is removed from the participants in the Editorial Workflow as an Editor
3- If the manuscript is authored by Managing Editor, it is handled by the Editorial Office and Editor-in-Chief (all the comments raised by reviewers will be forwarded to the corresponding author along with the decision letter, see Editor’s Hub)
To avoid any risk of bias in the peer-review, the Managing Editor is removed from the participants in the Editorial Workflow as an Editor
4- If the manuscript is authored by Associate Editor/Editorial Board Member, it is handled by the Editorial Office, Editor-in-Chief and another Associate Editor (all the comments raised by reviewers will be forwarded to the corresponding author along with the decision letter, see Editor’s Hub)
To avoid any risk of bias in the peer-review, the Editor is removed from the participants in the Editorial Workflow as an Editor


The Guidelines of BJ-BABS for Protection of Human and Animal Research Subjects

I) Protection of Human Subjects

Studies that involve human beings or animals must adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All original articles must state the approval number of Institutional Review Board, in related method sections, and full name of the institutional review committee. In case of individual cases or case series, informed consent for patient information or images must be clearly stated in informed consent for legally authorized representative.


II) Care and Use of Animals

All researches related to animals must be approved by an ethics committee where the studies were carried out. Manuscripts involving needless pain, distress, suffering, or lasting harm to animals, the editor keep the right to reject manuscripts on the basis of related ethics or welfare.


III) Clinical trials

From 2022, all clinical trials, which involve assigning a health-related intervention to human subjects, submitted to the journal must be registered with one of the primary registers in the WHO Registry Network ( or in before the first patient enrollment. The registration must contain complete information on the minimum 20-item trial registration (