Aim and Scope

The "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" is a peer-reviewed journal for medical professionals.

The main goal of the journal is to publish high-quality original articles, scientific reviews, case studies, and lectures for wide range of specialists in research and clinical practice, including healthcare professionals in physical and rehabilitation medicine; clinicians in the fields of neurology, cardiology, traumatology, orthopaedics, oncology and paediatrics; general practitioners; obstetricians and gynaecologists; doctors specialising in functional and radiological diagnostics; balneologists; sports medicine specialists; physio- and occupational therapists; speech therapists; psychologists; other specialists who encounter issues relating to rehabilitation and restorative medicine in their professional practice.

Our priorities include scientific and information support to members of the "professional community" in their pursuit of new ideas in clinical research. The "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" is proud to contribute to the continuing medical education (CME) for practitioners specialising in various fields, including restorative medicine, sports medicine, therapeutic exercise, balneology, physiotherapy, medical and social rehabilitation, and related disciplines.

As an open-access journal, "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" is available around the world.

The editorial board of "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" includes distinguished experts and opinion leaders.

The editorial team supports the policies of full compliance with the principles of international scientific publishing ethics. All submitted materials undergo a compulsory double-blind peer reviewing process.

Section Policies

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

REVIEW ARTICLES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

СASE REPORTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

EVENTS

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

Archiving and preservation can be seen as the set of processes and activities that ensure information which now exists mainly in digital formats is backed up and distributed to guarantee continued access for the long term. The digital content of the journal is extremely valuable and measures are in place to ensure both its current accessibility and long-term preservation. The preservation policy includes the following measures:

1. Content archiving

All of our electronic content is stored on two different sources. Content on one server is online and accessible to the readers. The copy of the same content is kept as a backup on other source. In case of failure of one server, the other source can be made online and website expected to be accessible within less than 24 hours.

2. Abstracting/Indexing services and full text access

Our journal’s abstracting/Indexing services store many essential information about the articles. Additionally, National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON), National Electronic Library (elibrary.ru) and cyberleninka.ru archive not only the metadata about the article, but the full texts, as well. Therefore, copies of the articles are available to the scientific community through their systems as an alternative to the journals own. Printed versions of all issues of the the journal are available in Russian State Library (RSL).

3. Author Self-archiving

Authors may archive the final published version of their articles in personal or institutional repositories immediately upon publication, provided they include a link to this journal's publication in the bibliographic description.

The published articles can be made accessible under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA license or equivalent, but not a more permissive license. For example, we do not allow articles to be made accessible under a Creative Commons CC-BY license.

When publishing (self-archiving) an article under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA license, authors must have the right to place all borrowed elements in the article under the same license. In all cases, the copyright holders of the borrowed elements must be identified, as must the fact that using these elements without the copyright holders' permission is not possible.

When publishing articles in third‑party repositories, the following information must be provided:

• A link to the article’s version of record in the journal's website https://rehabilitology.com – including via a DOI-based link.
• A clear statement about the license terms under which the posted version of the article is made available.

Example statements are:

“This article has been published in a revised form in “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” [http://doi.org/XXX]. This version is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution or re-use. © IRBIS LLC, 20XX”.

“This article has been published in a revised form in ”Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” [http://doi.org/XXX]. This version is published under a Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA. No commercial re-distribution or re-use allowed. Derivative works cannot be distributed. © IRBIS LLC, 20XX”.

When citing an accepted manuscript or an earlier version of an article, we request that readers also cite the Version of Record with a DOI link, for example: “Subsequently published in revised form in “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” [http://doi.org/XXX]”.

4. If the journal stops publishing

We intend and expect to continue to publish our journal for a very long time. If, due to some circumstances, we are forced to stop publishing the journal, the manuscripts published in the journal will be kept online and accessible to the readers for at least 10 more years. Also the content will be accessible through National Electronic Library (elibrary.ru).

In addition, The journal uses the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) to digitally preserve all the published articles. The PKP PN is a part of LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) program offers decentralized and distributed preservation, seamless perpetual access, and preservation of the authentic original version of the content.

Peer Review

A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation". This implies that neither the reviewers are aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewers.

All the manuscripts submitted for publication are objects for obligatory selection procedure based on peer review. Only articles that successfully pass all the necessary stages are accepted for publication. The selection procedure comprises the following stages: initial assessment of the manuscript's; internal and external peer review; evaluation by the editorial board.

1. Initial assessment

The initial assessment of the manuscript's compliance with the topic and requirements of the journal is performed within five working days of receipt. If any discrepancies are found, the authors will be notified of the reasons for rejection. Articles rejected at this stage will not be peer reviewed.

2. Internal and external peer review.

Internal peer review

Internal peer review is performed by the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board members and Science Editor.

External peer review

If the manuscript is considered relevant to the topic of the journal and meets its requirements, it is sent to several external peer reviewers for review.

At least two independent experts are selected by the editors amongst those having previous experience in the subject area. Most papers are reviewed by two reviewers. A third reviewer may be invited in case the two previous reviews contradict each other. When choosing a reviewer, the editors are guided by the expertise of the reviewer and the absence of professional relationships between the author and the reviewer.

2.1 The Editor-in-Chief, deputy Editor-in-Chief, scientific editor or Head of editorial office makes the decision on the assignment of external peer reviewers.

2.2. External peer review is performed by recognized experts in the relevant field. Peer reviewers should report any scientific, financial or other relationships with the potential authors (who remain unknown to the peer reviewers) and editors of the journal. Reviewers have an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript.

Peer review is performed on a voluntary and free of charge basis.

2.3. The manuscript is sent to external reviewers without mentioning the authors or their organizations (“double-blind” peer review).

2.4. Peer reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the property of the authors and are classified as confidential information. Peer reviewers must refrain from any illegal use of the materials sent to them for peer review, including copying.

2.5 Within 10 working days (for accelerated peer review) or 30 working days (for regular peer review) of receiving the manuscript, peer reviewers should provide a reasoned opinion on whether it can be published in its current form and submit any comments about the manuscript in writing. in some cases, the deadline may be extended due to the reviewers’ workload. The peer review should highlight whether the article's content is consistent with the stated topic, whether it is consistent with modern scientific and theoretical knowledge, and evaluate the language, style, arrangement of material, and the clarity and informativeness of tables, charts and figures. It should also evaluate the completeness and correctness of literature citations and the advantages and disadvantages of the article.  The peer reviewer should also indicate any amendments that should be made by the authors.

The peer reviewer's possible conclusions are:

• The article may be recommended for publication without revision.
• The article may be recommended for publication after minor revisions by the authors.
• The article should be revised and undergo an additional round of peer review.
• The article cannot be published due to poor quality, inconsistency with the journal's requirements or topic, ethical violations, falsification of results, or other reasons.

2.6 If the peer reviewers and the Editor-in-Chief approve publication of the manuscript in the journal, the corresponding author will be notified by email that the manuscript is being prepared for publication.

2.7. If the peer review indicates that corrections to the manuscript are needed, it is returned to the authors for revision, along with the peer reviews and a request to take the reviewers’ comments into account when preparing a revised version of the manuscript. The authors must respond to all questions, comments and suggestions from the peer reviewers. If they disagree with a peer reviewer's opinion, they should clearly justify their point of view. The author(s)' responses to the peer reviews must be submitted to the editor within two months of receipt of the reviews. If the corresponding author does not respond to a peer review within this timeframe, the manuscript is considered to have been withdrawn. Manuscripts revised by the authors and their responses to the peer reviewers are sent to the peer reviewers for evaluation. If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.

2.8. The text of a negative peer review is sent to the corresponding author via email for information purposes only.

2.9 Kindly note that a positive review does not guarantee acceptance. The final decision lies with the editorial board in all cases. The Editor-in-Chief has the final say in resolving all conflicts.

3. Evaluation by the editorial board

3.1. The editorial board evaluates articles being prepared for publication in the next issue of the journal. The board approves the list of articles to be published in the current issue of the journal. The editorial board may reject externally peer reviewed articles or send an article for additional external peer review.

3.2. The Editor-in-Chief or deputy Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the possibility of manuscript publication. All manuscripts approved by the Editor-in-Chief or deputy Editor-in-Chief are sent for copyediting, translation, layout editing, proofreading, and publication. The editors reserve the right to edit submitted articles and their titles, including reduction.

4. Manuscript Circulation and Review Storage

4.1. Before publication, the article's layout is sent to the corresponding author in PDF format via email for proofreading to ensure there are no misprints in the text, tables, or figures. Within 48 hours of receiving this email, the author must respond to the journal editor. Failure to respond is interpreted as acceptance of the version of the article sent to the author.

4.2. Reviews are kept in the editorial office for three years.

4.3. The editors will send copies of reviews or a reasoned rejection to the author(s) of submitted manuscripts and will also send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation upon receiving a relevant request.

4.4. Manuscripts will be rejected if:

• They are not designed in accordance with the Journal's requirements, or the authors refuse to revise the manuscript.
• The authors do not follow constructive instructions from reviewers and editors, or they do not respond with counterarguments.

Articles that have been rejected can be resubmitted to the editor after they have been revised by the authors. According to the standard procedure, they are treated as new submissions.

5. Peer Review Quality Control

5.1. The Editorial Board constantly monitors peer review quality using the Russian version of the Review Quality Instrument questionnaire (version 3.2) by van Rooyen, S., Black, N., & Godlee, F. (1999). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(7), 625–629.

5.2. The journal's editorial board expects the peer-review process to help:

• Prevent the publication of poor-quality articles and reject studies that have not been properly designed or conducted
• Ensure that the data reported in the article are accurate and sufficient and, where applicable, presented in compliance with current international standards (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, and STARD: http://www.equator-network.org)
• Check whether previous key studies in the corresponding field of science have been cited
• Ensure that the authors have properly interpreted the data and drawn substantiated conclusions
• Make a decision on whether to publish an article and offer suggestions to the authors on how to improve it, where necessary

Publishing Ethics

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org

1. Introduction

1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” 

1.2. Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.

2. Duties of Editors

2.1. Publication decision – The Editor of a learned “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation”  is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” 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 (or society officers) in making this decision.

2.2. Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” 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.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflicts of interest

2.4.1. 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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

2.5. Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

2.6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. 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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

3.2. 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 of “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” and excuse himself from the review process.

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

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

3.5. 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.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

3.6.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3.6.2. 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.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1. Reporting standards

4.1.1. 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 behaviour and are unacceptable.

4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2. Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

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

4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

4.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

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

4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.

4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further detail on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found at www.icmje.org.

4.5. 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. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

4.6. Authorship of the Paper

4.6.1. 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.

4.6.2. 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.

4.7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

4.7.1. 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.

4.7.2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

4.8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

4.8.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict 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.

4.8.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

4.9. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.

5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)

5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation”  in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising or reprint revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

5.2. The publisher should support “Journal of Medical Rehabilitation” journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.

5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.

5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org

Founder

IRBIS Publishing House (IRBIS LLC)

Author fees

Publication in the "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" is free of charge for all the authors.

The publishing house does not charge fees from the authors for publication of the articles in open access, peer review, preparing journal for print, website content or electronic deposit of manuscripts. 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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

Plagiarism detection

Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another paper as the author(s) own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another(s) paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Only original works are acceptable for publication in "Journal of medical rehabilitation". The journal does not allow any forms of plagiarism.

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Where they make use of the work or statements of other authors, they must provide the relevant bibliographical references or quotations.

Plagiarism is identified:

• When submitting a manuscript via the plagiarism detection software "Antiplagiat"; “{do}mate»; “Rucontext» or iThenticate/Turnitin;
• As part of the peer review process;
• After manuscripts have been published – following reports from readers.

Thus, all submitted manuscripts are checked using plagiarism detection software. Based on the generated report, the reviewer assesses the manuscript with the aim of classifying borrowings as legitimate or illegitimate (plagiarism), as well as distinguishing between good-faith self-citation and bad-faith self-citation (self-plagiarism). For an article to be accepted, at least 85% of the text must be original.

If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed. The identification of a significant amount of text that has been borrowed without justification in terms of the aims and content of the manuscript, as well as graphical and table elements, and a low originality score for the text entitles the editorial board to require the authors to amend the manuscript, refuse further consideration of the manuscript, refuse publication of a previously accepted manuscript (withdraw the manuscript) and retract a published article.

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Policy on retraction or correction of articles

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
• an investigation is underway, but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
• the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Retractions are not usually appropriate if:

• a change of authorship is required but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings

Notices of retraction should:

• be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e. in all electronic versions) •clearly identify the retracted article (e.g. by including the title and authors in the retraction heading)
• be clearly identified as a retraction (i.e. distinct from other types of correction or comment)
• be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications
• be freely available to all readers (i.e. not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
• state who is retracting the article
• state the reason(s) for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error)
• avoid statements that are potentially defamatory or libelous

The purpose of retraction

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or recommendations.
The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.

What form should a retraction take?

Notices of retraction should mention the reasons and basis for the retraction, to distinguish cases of misconduct from those of honest error; they should also specify who is retracting the article. They should be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. print and/or electronic). It is helpful to include the authors and title of the retracted article in the retraction heading.

Retracted articles should be clearly identified as such in all electronic sources (e.g. on the journal website and any bibliographic databases). Editors are responsible for ensuring that retractions are labelled in such a way that they are identified by bibliographic databases (which should also include a link to the retracted article). The retraction should appear on all electronic searches for the retracted publication. Journals and publishers should ensure that retracted articles are clearly marked on their own websites.
Retracted articles should not be removed from printed copies of the journal (e.g. in libraries) nor from electronic archives but their retracted status should be indicated as clearly as possible.

Which publications should be retracted?

If only a small part of an article reports flawed data, and especially if this is the result of genuine error, then the problem is best rectified by a correction or erratum. (The term erratum usually refers to a production error, caused by the journal. The term corrigendum (or correction) usually refers to an author error.) Partial retractions are not helpful because they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be relied upon.
Similarly, if only a small section of an article (e.g. a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarized, editors should consider whether readers (and the plagiarized author) would be best served by a correction (which could note the fact that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement) rather than retracting the entire article which may contain sound, original data in other parts. Retraction should usually be reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon.

If redundant publication has occurred (i.e. authors have published the same data or article in more than one journal without appropriate justification, permission or cross-referencing) the journal that first published the article may issue a notice of redundant publication but should not retract the article unless the findings are unreliable. Any journals that subsequently publish a redundant article should retract it and state the reason for the retraction.
If an article is submitted to more than one journal simultaneously and is accepted and published in both journals (either electronically or in print) at the same time, precedence may be determined by the date on which a license to publish or a copyright transfer agreement was signed by the authors.

In cases of partial overlap (i.e. when authors present some new findings in an article that also contains a substantial amount of previously published information) editors need to consider whether readers are best served if the entire article is retracted or whether it would be best to issue a notice of redundant publication clarifying which aspects had been published previously and providing appropriate cross-references to the earlier work. This will depend on the amount of overlap. Editors should bear in mind that the main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish authors who misbehave.
Only published items can be retracted. Guidelines on dealing with redundant publications identified in submitted manuscripts can be found in the relevant COPE flowchart. Posting a final version on a website constitutes publication even if an article has not appeared (or will not appear) in print. If an article is retracted before it appears in the print version of a journal, the electronic version should be retained on the journal’s website with a clear notice of retraction and it should be included on bibliographic databases (e.g. with a digital object identifier [DOI] or other permanent citation that will locate it) even if it does not appear in the printed journal and therefore does not receive a page allocation. This is because electronic versions may already have been accessed and cited by researchers who need to be alerted to the fact that the article has been retracted.

Who should issue the retraction?

Articles may be retracted by their author(s) or by the journal editor. In some cases, retractions are issued jointly or on behalf of the journal’s owner (e.g. a learned society or publisher). However, since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the editor s/he should always have the final decision about retracting material. Journal editors may retract publications (or issue expressions of concern) even if all or some of the authors refuse to retract the publication themselves.

When should a publication be retracted?

Publications should be retracted as soon as possible after the journal editor is convinced that the publication is seriously flawed and misleading (or is redundant or plagiarized). Prompt retraction should minimize the number of researchers who cite the erroneous work, act on its findings or draw incorrect conclusions, such as from ‘double counting’ redundant publications in meta-analyses or similar instances. If editors have convincing evidence that a retraction is required, they should not delay retraction simply because the authors are not cooperative. However, if an allegation of misconduct related to a potential retraction results in a disciplinary hearing or institutional investigation, it is normally appropriate to wait for the outcome of this before issuing a retraction (but an expression of concern may be published to alert readers in the interim – see below).

What should editors do in the face of inconclusive evidence about a publication’s reliability?

If conclusive evidence about the reliability of a publication cannot be obtained (e.g. if authors produce conflicting accounts of the case, authors’ institutions refuse to investigate alleged misconduct or to release the findings of such investigations, or if investigations appear not to have been carried out fairly or are taking an unreasonably long time to reach a conclusion) editors should issue an expression of concern rather than retracting the publication immediately. Such expressions of concern, like retraction notices, should be clearly linked to the original publication (i.e. in electronic databases and by including the author and title of the original publication as a heading) and should state the reasons for the concern. If more conclusive evidence about the publication’s reliability becomes available later, the expression of concern should be replaced by a notice of retraction (if the article is shown to be unreliable) or by an exonerating statement linked to the expression of concern (if the article is shown to be reliable and the author exonerated).

Should retraction be applied in cases of disputed authorship?

Authors sometimes request that articles are retracted when authorship is disputed after publication. If there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings or the reliability of the data it is not appropriate to retract a publication solely on the grounds of an authorship dispute. In such cases, the journal editor should inform those involved in the dispute that s/he cannot adjudicate in such cases but will be willing to publish a correction to the author/contributor list if the authors/contributors (or their institutions) provide appropriate proof that such a change is justified.

For authorship disputes occurring before publication, see the relevant COPE flowcharts: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04A_Author_Add_Submitted.pdf and http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04B_Author_Remove_Submitted.pdf)

Can authors dissociate themselves from a retracted publication?

If retraction is due to the actions of some, but not all, authors of a publication, the notice of retraction should mention this. However, most editors consider that authorship entails some degree of joint responsibility for the integrity of the reported research, so it is not appropriate for authors to dissociate themselves from a retracted publication even if they were not directly culpable of any misconduct.

Are there grounds for legal proceedings if an author sues a journal for retracting, or refusing to retract, a publication?

Authors who disagree with a retraction (or whose request to retract a publication is refused) sometimes threaten journal editors with legal action. Concern over litigation can make editors reluctant to retract articles, especially in the face of opposition from authors.
Journals’ instructions for authors should explain the retraction procedure and describe the circumstances under which articles might be retracted. This information should be incorporated (e.g. by references) into any publishing agreements and brought to the authors’ attention. However, even if the publishing agreement or journal instructions do not set out specific conditions for retraction, authors usually would not have grounds for taking legal action against a journal over the act of retraction if it follows a suitable investigation and proper procedures.

However, legal advice may be helpful to determine appropriate wording for a notice of retraction or expression of concern to ensure that these are not defamatory or libelous. Nevertheless, retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.

Whenever possible, editors should negotiate with authors and attempt to agree a form of wording that is clear and informative to readers and acceptable to all parties. If authors consent to the wording of a retraction statement, this provides defense against a libel claim. However, prolonged negotiations about wording should not be allowed to delay the publication of a retraction unreasonably and editors should publish retractions even if consensus cannot be reached.

The Policy based on:
WagerE., Barbour V., Yentis S., Kleinert S. on behalf of COPE Council. Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Electronic resource [https://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf].
Translated in Russian by Russian Association of Science Editors and Publishers (RASEP).

The position in relation to the authorship

Based on ICMJE recommendations and [McNutt et al., Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073 / pnas.1715374115]

All members of the group of authors should meet all four criteria of authorship set forth in the ICMJE recommendations: 
1) concept and design development or data analysis and interpretation
2) manuscript justification or verification of critical intellectual content
3) final approval for publication of the manuscript
4) consent to be responsible for all aspects of the work and assume that issues relating to the thoroughness and diligent execution of all parts of the study submitted are duly investigated and resolved (even ones in which the author was not personally involved).
Сontributors do not meet all four authorship criteria could be mentioned in the Acknowledgements section. Their functions may be: funding, general management of the research team, general administrative support, participation in writing, technical revision of the text, scientific revision of the text, correction and proofreading. Their contribution to the work must be defined in writing (as example, scientific consultant, medical writer, critical data analysis, data collection, etc.)

The journal does not require all authors of a manuscript to sign the letter of submission, nor do they impose an order on the list of authors. Submission to the journal is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents, including the author list and author contribution statements. The corresponding author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been reached that all authors have agreed to be so listed, and have approved the manuscript submission to the journal, and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. The corresponding author is also responsible for submitting a competing interests' statement on behalf of all authors of the paper.

It is expected that the corresponding author will be responsible for the following with respect to data:
• ensuring that data comply with transparency and reproducibility standards;
• ensuring that original data upon which the submitted manuscript is based are preserved following best practices in the field so that they are used for reanalysis;
• confirming that data presentation accurately reflects the original;
• foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data described in the work
• ensuring that all authors (or group leaders in multi-center collaborations) have certified the author list and author contributions

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work concerned for mention of any unpublished material cited in the manuscript (for example others' data in press manuscripts; personal communications or work in preparation). The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript (such as figures) that has been published previously elsewhere and provide written permission from authors of the prior work and/or publishers, as appropriate, for the re-use of such material.

After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the proof, including the names of coauthors, addresses and affiliations.

After publication, the corresponding author is the point of contact for queries about the published paper. It is his/her responsibility to inform all co-authors of any matters arising in relation to the published paper and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. Authors of published material have a responsibility to inform the journal immediately if they become aware of any aspects that requires correction.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. The journal editors are not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be directed to the relevant institutional authority.

Consortia authorship

If a consortium is listed as a collective of authors, all members of the consortium are considered authors and must be listed in the published article as such. If not all members of the consortium agree to the responsibilities of authorship, the members that are authors will be listed separately from those who are not. To facilitate submission of manuscripts with large author lists, please consult the journal editor before submission.

Author contribution statements

The journal encourage transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors are required to include a statement of contribution in the manuscript, that specifies the contribution of every author. It’also allow to specify as each author having contributed equally to the work or having jointly supervised the work. Corresponding authors having specific responsibilities (described above) usually one.

Author identification

As part of efforts to improve transparency and unambiguous attribution of scholarly contributions, authors of manuscripts must provide their Web of Science ResearcherID, Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID), Scopus ID, RCSI spin-code (if any).

Policy on the use of artificial intelligence tools

This policy governs the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies by authors, reviewers, and editors at all stages of the publishing process, including the writing, peer review, and editorial preparation of manuscripts.

While the journal recognizes that generative and other AI tools can be useful aids, they do not replace scientific expertise, critical thinking or the responsibility of authors.

The aim of this policy is to uphold the principles of academic openness and the ethics of scientific publication.

The editorial board does not restrict authors' use of AI technologies, including those used for data search and analysis, large language models, chatbots, machine learning, image generation, translation and other AI-based technologies, as tools for scientific research. However, the use of AI for planning and conducting research, as well as for data analysis, must be disclosed in a separate section (for example, an “AI disclosure section” within the “Acknowledgements” section or an “AI use statement” with a brief description of:

• Which specific tools were used (name, version/model, provider);
• At what stage and for what purpose they were used (e.g. “language editing of the "Discussion" section”, “assistance in structuring the introduction”).

Example wording: “The following AI services were used in the preparation of this article: [name, version/model] for [purpose]. All results have been verified by the authors, and no confidential or previously unpublished data has been transferred to public services”.

Checking grammar, spelling and punctuation, and translating sections of the article into a foreign language does not require a declaration. The journal’s editorial board does not restrict authors' use of AI for auxiliary purposes when preparing a manuscript, such as improving the style and readability of human-written text, translating it, formatting the reference list or editing illustrative material, and this includes the journal’s review process. The use of AI as a supporting tool is permitted for:

• Language editing and stylistic improvement of text that has already been written;
• Assistance in structuring the material and formulating headings and abstracts;
• Checking spelling, grammar, and basic formatting.

However, authors must retain a record of their use of AI (e.g. prompts, scripts, and parameters) and provide it to the editorial team upon request. The editorial team reserves the right to request source materials (e.g. a draft manuscript) to assess the authors’ contribution and make an informed decision on whether to proceed with reviewing the work.

The use of AI is strictly prohibited for:

• Generating, modifying or 'improving' research data, images, diagrams or code presented as genuine research results;
• Fabricating, falsifying or concealing data, or creating “example” data in place of data actually obtained;
• Writing substantial sections of a manuscript’s text without author involvement (i.e. generating text presented as wholly original scientific work without substantial revision and verification by the authors);
• The automatic selection, invention or distortion of bibliographic references;
• The preparation or substantive editing of illustrative material (e.g. data visualizations), except for color correction provided this does not alter the content.
• Circumventing peer-review procedures, fabricating reviews, or passing off others’ ideas as one’s own.

The journal’s editorial board does not consider materials (including manuscripts, illustrative material, and data) that have been created or substantially modified using AI. Authors must not list AI as an author, refer to it as an author, or cite it in that capacity.

Furthermore, the editorial board strongly advises against using AI for translation without subsequently verifying the quality of the translation with professional translators. In accordance with the conditions for authorship (see the ICMJE criteria for further details), we emphasize that authors bear full responsibility for all aspects of the work submitted to the journal (including its translation). This includes ensuring that matters relating to the work’s compliance with established ethical principles, standards and rules are properly addressed.

The editorial board reserves the right to discontinue consideration of a manuscript if the authors use texts created or substantially modified using AI in their correspondence with the editorial board or reviewers.

By submitting a manuscript to the editorial office, authors confirm their agreement with all provisions of this editorial policy and the guidelines for authors regarding the use of AI.

Reviewers, editorial board members and publishing house staff may use AI tools solely to aid the language editing of their own review text, provided the following conditions are met:

• Complete confidentiality of the manuscript and the review;
• Full personal control over the content, tone and accuracy of the review.

The use of AI to automatically generate peer-review reports or decisions regarding a manuscript is not permitted.

Violations of the editorial policy regarding the use of AI by participants in the publication process are grounds for initiating an editorial investigation, revocation (retraction), and/or other sanctions.

Clinical trials data sharing policy

According to the latest recommendations of the ICMJE, when submitting an article containing data on a clinical study, the authors should submit a separate document "Statement on data sharing".

In accordance with statement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, as of July 1, 2018, manuscripts submitted to the journal that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after January 1, 2019, must include a data sharing plan in the trial's registration. The ICMJE's policy regarding trial registration is explained at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html. If the data sharing plan changes after registration, this should be reflected in the statement submitted and published with the manuscript and updated in the registry record.

Please see below examples of data sharing statements that fulfill the ICMJE requirements

Revenue Sources

The publication of the journal is financed by the funds of the parent organization, at the expense of the publisher, publication of advertising materials, publication of reprints.

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref, provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, "Journal of Medical Rehabilitation" is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

Policy regarding the corresponding author

1. General provisions

1.1. This policy outlines the requirements for the corresponding author during the submission, review, publication, and post-publication management of a manuscript.

1.2. This policy is based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ICMJE standards, taking into account the requirements of Russian legislation.

1.3. This policy applies to all types of manuscripts.

2. Definition and status of the corresponding author

2.1. The editorial board distinguishes between three roles:

• The corresponding author: the person appointed by the group of authors to coordinate communication with the editorial team. They act on behalf of all authors and are responsible for all stages of the manuscript's life cycle, from initial submission to post-publication.
• The submitting author: the person who uploads the manuscript to the editorial system.
• The guarantor: the co-author(s) who vouch for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

In this journal, unless otherwise specified, the corresponding author also acts as the submitting author and guarantor.

2.2. The corresponding author is identified in the manuscript and in the metadata upon submission to the journal. Their contact details (full name, affiliation, email address and ORCID) are published in the article.

2.3. Being the corresponding author does not affect the order of authors in the list, nor does it indicate a greater scientific contribution.

3. Appointment and requirements for the corresponding author

3.1. The corresponding author is appointed by mutual agreement of all co-authors upon submission of the manuscript. This appointment is recorded in the manuscript’s metadata.

3.2. The corresponding author must be included in the manuscript's author list and meet all the ICMJE criteria for authorship, such as making a substantial contribution to the work, drafting or critically revising the text, approving the final version and taking responsibility for all aspects of the work. A person who is not a co-author cannot be appointed as the corresponding author.

3.3. The corresponding author must have an ORCID account with a correctly completed profile.

3.4. The corresponding author must provide up-to-date affiliations (including names, addresses and job titles of places of employment) and a valid email address. Preference is given to institutional or corporate email addresses (i.e. a domain belonging to a university, research organisation or commercial organisation). If email addresses registered with public email services are used (such as Gmail, iCloud, Yahoo, Mail.Ru and Inbox.Ru), the editorial team reserves the right to request confirmation of affiliation.

3.5. In accordance with paragraph 10, part 8, Article 8 of Federal Law No. 149-FZ of 27 July 2006, corresponding authors located within the Russian Federation are not permitted to log in to the journal’s official website using foreign authentication systems (such as Google ID, Apple ID and similar).

4. Number of corresponding authors

4.1. The journal permits one or two corresponding authors. Co-correspondence is recommended for international teams spread across different time zones, for “junior first author + academic supervisor” pairings, and for cases where different authors are responsible for different aspects (e.g. the experiment and the literature review).

4.2. When appointing two corresponding authors:

• Both must meet the requirements for a corresponding author;
• Both bear equal responsibility;
• In the submission system, one “primary” corresponding author is designated who signs the contract with the publisher and liaises with the editorial team, while the second corresponding author is copied on all official correspondence.

4.3. The decision on the number of corresponding authors is made by the authors themselves and does not require approval from the editorial team, provided it does not conflict with any other provisions of this policy.

5. Change of corresponding author

5.1. A change of corresponding author is permitted prior to publication, provided that all co-authors give their written consent. The editorial team will request an explanation and confirmation of consent.

5.2. After publication, a change of corresponding author will be considered in accordance with the COPE guidelines:

• The journal’s editorial team will contact all authors to ascertain the reason for the request;
• The reasons may be deemed either valid (e.g. relocation or loss of access to correspondence) or manipulative (e.g. a desire to assume a “prestigious” position). The journal’s editorial team will then decide whether to approve the change;
• If the editorial team approves the change, a corrigendum relating to the original article is published, stating the reason for the change.

5.3. The editorial team does not independently resolve disputes over authorship, but follows COPE’s recommendations and, where necessary, involves the organizations to which the authors are affiliated.

6. Responsibilities of the corresponding author

The corresponding author is legally and ethically responsible for the following:

6.1. Ensuring that the manuscript complies with the journal’s technical and stylistic requirements.

6.2. Confirming authorship:

• All co-authors meet the criteria for authorship and are listed in the manuscript;
• Individuals who do not meet the criteria are not included in the list of authors (“ghost”, “guest” and “gift” authorship are not permitted).

6.3. Obtaining the explicit consent of all co-authors for the initial submission of the manuscript, any amendments made during peer review, proofreading and layout, and publication.

6.4. Communication. The corresponding author is the sole official point of contact with the editorial team. They must respond to enquiries during the screening, peer review, editing and proofreading stages within 10 working days at the latest. They must also ensure that they can receive incoming correspondence by configuring their spam filter, VPN and other technical settings to ensure that requests from the editorial team are received.

6.5. Informing co-authors. The corresponding author must keep all co-authors informed of the review process status, review content, significant amendments, editorial decisions, proofreading, etc. The editorial team reserves the right to forward significant decisions to all co-authors.

6.6 Documents and declarations. The corresponding author is responsible for collecting and submitting the necessary documents and declarations on behalf of the authorship team. These include a declaration of conflicts of interest, details of funding sources, authors’ contributions according to the CRediT taxonomy or in expanded form, and details of ethical committee approval and clinical trial registration where necessary. The corresponding author is also responsible for obtaining consent to the processing of personal data.

6.7. Contractual and financial matters. The corresponding author signs the contract with the publisher on behalf of the authors, agrees to the terms of open access and arranges payment for editorial services.

6.8. Transparency. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring compliance with the journal’s open data and code policy, including depositing data, ensuring the accuracy of links to repositories and making data available upon reasonable request.

6.9. Post-publication support. The corresponding author acts as the designated point of contact, responding promptly to enquiries from readers, the editorial team and the publisher regarding the published article. They also participate in investigations into expressions of concern and coordinate the preparation of corrections or retractions where necessary.

6.10. Compliance with ethical standards. The manuscript must not contain plagiarism, falsification or fabrication of data, or any other breach of publication ethics.

7. Submission of manuscripts and involvement of third parties

7.1 Manuscripts must be submitted directly to the editorial and publishing system via the journal’s official website by one of the co-authors (usually the corresponding author) from their personal account.

7.2. Technical assistance with uploading files may be provided by administrative or laboratory assistants who are not co-authors, or by junior co-authors. However, such submissions must comply with the following conditions:

• The submission must be made via the corresponding author’s authorized account;
• The cover letter or the “Acknowledgements” section must state that the submission was made by a third party, and provide their name and, where applicable, their place of employment, as well as the extent of their involvement in preparing the manuscript;
• The third party must confirm that all authors have authorized them to submit the manuscript and have approved of all declarations.

7.3. The journal strictly prohibits the submission of manuscripts via unauthorized third-party agencies, “manuscript brokers” or “paper mills”.

7.4. The journal strictly prohibits the submission of a manuscript by a third party without disclosing this fact; the submission and signing of documents on behalf of the authors without their knowledge or explicit permission; the falsification of co-authors’ contact details and affiliations.

8. Payment for editorial services

8.1. The corresponding author is responsible for payment for editorial services (APC).

8.2. Payment does not influence editorial decisions relating to selection, peer review or acceptance for publication.

8.3. Payment does not exempt authors from meeting quality and ethical standards.

8.4. Payment does not confer authorship; it is prohibited to include someone as a co-author in return for payment.

8.5. Anonymous payments that conceal the payer’s identity are prohibited, as are payments made through intermediaries where the payment arrangement is not disclosed.

8.6. Upon request by the editorial team, the corresponding author must provide the original bank payment document (cheque, bank statement etc.).

9. Breaches and sanctions

9.1. The corresponding author is not solely responsible for the accuracy of the scientific findings; this is a collective responsibility of all the authors. The corresponding author is personally responsible for the correctness of the procedure, including representation of the group of authors, completeness of declarations, communication, and financial and contractual matters.

9.2. Violations include, in particular:

• The corresponding author naming a person who is not a co-author;
• Inaccurate information regarding the authors’ affiliations and contact details;
• Inaccurate information regarding conflicts of interest, funding, or the use of AI;
• Irresponsibility on the part of the corresponding author that disrupts the review process;
• Fictitious or undeclared authorship;
• Submission of a manuscript by a third party without disclosure of this fact;
• Signing documents on behalf of the authors without their consent;
• Changing the corresponding author without the consent of all authors.

9.3. Should any breaches of this policy be identified, the editorial team is entitled to:

• Initiate an investigation, requesting additional verification from all authors (including author identification via mobile phone, video call or passport details);
• Suspend the review or publication of the manuscript;
• Require the manuscript to be resubmitted with the correct details of the corresponding author;
• Remove the manuscript from the editorial pipeline;
• Reject the manuscript;
• Publish a corrigendum or retraction in accordance with COPE guidelines;
• Notify the organizations with which the authors are affiliated;
• Report the matter to the law enforcement authorities.

10. Final provisions

10.1. Any matters not covered by this Policy shall be resolved in accordance with the recommendations of COPE and the ICMJE, and the local legislation.