Journal Policies

Policy Statements

A. Peer Review Policy

Research and Advances in Medicine follows a double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and originality of published research. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial office to ensure that they Fit within the journal’s scope, adhere to submission guidelines, meet basic scientific and ethical standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Assignment to Handling Editor

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an appropriate handling editor based on subject expertise. The handling editor oversees the peer review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers who have relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience and publication record

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers
Reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on their scientific validity, originality and novelty, methodological rigor, ethical compliance and clarity of presentation

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following:
Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, Reject

6. Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor based on Reviewer comments, Scientific merit of the manuscript, Relevance to the journal, Authors are notified of the decision along with reviewer feedback.

7. Revision Process

If revisions are requested, the authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers and the revised manuscripts may be sent for re-review

8. Final Acceptance and Publication

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting and formatting, proofs are shared with authors for final approval, and the article is published online

9. Timeline

Initial screening: 3–7 days
Peer review: 2–4 weeks
Final decision: 4–6 weeks (average)
Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.

10. Ethical Considerations

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents and reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest. The journal follows COPE guidelines for ethical publishing

11. Transparency and Integrity

Editorial decisions are independent of APC payments. APC is charged only after acceptance. The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript

12. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed independently and decisions are communicated transparently.


B. Reviewer Recognition Policy

Research and Advances in Medicine acknowledges the essential role of peer reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. The journal is committed to recognizing reviewer contributions while preserving the confidentiality of the peer review process.

Recognition Methods

Annual Reviewer Acknowledgment:
The journal publishes an annual list of reviewers who have contributed during the year (with reviewer consent).

Certificates of Review:
Reviewers may receive a digital certificate acknowledging their contribution upon completion of a review.

Reviewer Credits:
Reviewers are encouraged to record their peer review activity on platforms such as Publons/Web of Science Reviewer Recognition (where applicable).

Confidentiality:
Reviewer identities are not disclosed in relation to specific manuscripts under the double-blind peer review model. Recognition is provided without linking reviewers to individual articles.

Recognition is granted based on:
Completion of reviews within stipulated timelines, Quality, constructiveness, and professionalism of feedback

Editorial Board Consideration:
Consistently high-performing reviewers may be considered for inclusion in the journal’s editorial board.

Ethical Standards:
All reviewers are expected to adhere to COPE guidelines, maintain confidentiality, and declare conflicts of interest.



C. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use Policy

Research and Advances in Medicine recognizes the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in research and publishing. The journal provides the following guidelines to ensure ethical and transparent use.

Use of AI by Authors:
AI tools (e.g., language models, writing assistants) may be used for language editing or formatting support only.
AI tools must not be listed as authors.
Authors must disclose any significant use of AI tools in the manuscript (e.g., in Methods or Acknowledgments).
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the content.

Prohibited Uses:
AI-generated data, images, or results presented as real without disclosure
Fabrication or manipulation of research findings using AI
Use of AI to generate peer review reports under author identity

Use of AI by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts into AI tools or external platforms, as this may breach confidentiality.
AI tools should not be used to generate full review reports.

Use of AI by Editors
Editors may use AI tools for administrative tasks (e.g., plagiarism checks, language screening), but final decisions are made by human editors.

Transparency
All AI use must be transparent, ethical, and in compliance with publication standards and COPE recommendations.

D. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Research and Advances in Medicine is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. All parties involved in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—are expected to adhere to ethical standards based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Duties of Authors

Originality and Plagiarism:
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:
Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals is unethical.

Data Access and Retention:
Authors may be asked to provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Authorship of the Manuscript:
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Ethical Approval:
Research involving human participants or animals must include a statement confirming approval from an appropriate ethics committee and informed consent from participants.

Corrections of Errors:
When an author discovers a significant error in their published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate in retracting or correcting the paper.

2. Duties of Reviewers

Confidentiality:
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed with others.

Objectivity:
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest:
Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

3. Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions:
The editor is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published, based on the validity and importance of the work.

Fair Play:
Editors evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality:
Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and publisher.

Conflicts of Interest:
Editors must not use unpublished information in their own research and must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

4. Peer Review Process

Research Ascent Medical Journal follows a double-blind peer review process. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Editorial decisions are based on reviewer comments, scientific validity, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

5. Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are checked for plagiarism using appropriate software/tools. Manuscripts with significant similarity or suspected misconduct will be rejected.

6. Retraction and Corrections Policy

The journal follows COPE guidelines for handling corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern. Articles may be retracted in cases of proven misconduct, data fabrication, plagiarism, or serious errors.

7. Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain copyright of their work. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), allowing unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction with proper attribution.

8. Publisher’s Responsibilities

The publisher is committed to ensuring editorial independence, maintaining ethical standards, and supporting the integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by contacting the editorial office with a detailed explanation. Complaints regarding publication ethics will be handled according to COPE guidelines.

Contact Information

For any ethical concerns or complaints, please contact:

Yadavalli RD Rajan
Email: editor@ramjournal.com

E. Digital Preservation & Archiving Policy

RAMJ is committed to the long-term availability and preservation of all published content. The journal participates in the following digital preservation programs:

LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe): RAMJ is registered with the LOCKSS program, enabling participating libraries to create and maintain archival copies of published content.
PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN): As a journal published on Open Journal Systems (OJS), RAMJ participates in the PKP Preservation Network for automated digital preservation.
Self-hosting: Complete archives of all published volumes and issues are maintained on the journal’s server. Authors are also encouraged to deposit published versions in institutional repositories.
In the event of journal discontinuation, all content will remain freely accessible at the journal’s permanent URL and/or be transferred to a designated digital repository.

F. Anti-plagiarism policy

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism, data fabrication and image manipulation are not tolerated. Plagiarism is not acceptable in RAMJ submissions.

Plagiarism includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving any credit to the original source. Reuse of text that is copied from another source must be between quotes and the original source must be cited. If a study’s design or the manuscript’s structure or language has been inspired by previous works, these works must be explicitly cited.

If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may publish a correction or retract the paper.

Multiple 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

Journal checks all manuscripts submitted to the journal for plagiarism by independent experts and special softwares like Turnitin or iThenticate. We protect the rights of the authors/co-authors and investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the information presented in the articles, the accuracy of the names, last names, and citations. The authors have responsibility for their presented materials in case of finding out plagiarism in them. Equally, we protect the reputation of the journal against malpractice. Thus, the journal reserves the right to reject the paper for plagiarism without further explanations and take appropriate legal action.

G. Conflict of Interest Policy for Editors and Reviewers

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when they have a conflict of interest including:

Current or recent (within 3 years) collaboration with an author
Personal or financial relationships with an author
Being from the same institution as the corresponding author
Having a competing manuscript under review or in preparation on the same topic
When a conflict exists, the Editor-in-Chief will assign the manuscript to another editor. Reviewers are similarly required to declare any potential conflicts prior to reviewing. Any undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication will trigger a post-publication review.

H. Retraction, Correction, and Expression of Concern Policy
RAMJ is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. In accordance with COPE guidelines, the following procedures apply:

Corrections (Erratum/Corrigendum)
A correction is issued when a published article contains a minor error that does not affect the conclusions. The correction notice is linked to the original article, identifies the error, and states the correct information.

Retraction
A retraction is issued when an article contains a fundamental error that invalidates its conclusions, or when misconduct is confirmed (e.g., fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest). Retracted articles remain visible on the website with a retraction notice stamped on the PDF.

Expression of Concern
An Expression of Concern is issued when an investigation into alleged misconduct is ongoing, or when evidence of concern exists but is insufficient to warrant retraction. Authors, readers, or institutions may raise concerns by contacting editor.jsrth@gmail.com. All reports are investigated according to COPE flowcharts.

Process
Concerns about published articles should be emailed to editor@ramjournal.com
The Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor will acknowledge receipt within 5 business days
An investigation will be conducted in accordance with COPE guidelines
The decision to issue a correction, retraction, or expression of concern will be made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board
Notices will be published as soon as possible and linked to the original article

I. Data Availability Statement Policy

RAMJ encourages authors to make the data underlying their research openly available wherever legally and ethically permissible. Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript as a separate section before the References.

Acceptable Data Availability Statements:
“The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at [DOI/URL].”
“The data that support the findings of this study are available from [institution] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [institution].”
“All data are contained within the manuscript.”
“No new data were generated for this study. This is a review/conceptual paper.”
Recommended repositories include: Dryad, Zenodo, figshare, Harvard Dataverse, and OSF (Open Science Framework).