Responsibility of Authors
Painosoma has its own Authors. The manuscript of Painosoma authors will be published in open access under the Painosoma License. The authors do verify that their manuscripts are their original work. The authors also verify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. The authors confirm that the manuscript isn’t currently being considered for publication elsewhere. The authors submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the Painosoma Author Guidelines. Additionally, the authors participate within the review process and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. All authors mentioned significantly contribute to the research. The Writers inform the Editors of any conflicts of interest. The authors classify all sources utilized in the creation of their manuscripts. The Painosoma Writers account any errors they discover in their published paper to the Painosoma Editors.
Reference, Citations, Sources
Painosoma Research articles cite appropriate and relevant references in support of the claims made. The authors consider the subsequent guidelines when writing their manuscript: Any statement within the manuscript that relies on external sources of knowledge (i.e. not the authors’ own new idea or findings or general knowledge) uses a citation. The authors do confirm that their citations are accurate and proper (i.e. they ought to ensure that the citation supports the statement made within the authors’ manuscript and must not misrepresent another work). The authors do not cite sources that they need not read. The authors do not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications. The authors do not use an excessive number of citations to support one point. Ideally, Writers cite sources that have undergone critique where possible. Authors do not cite advertisements or related material.
Responsibility of Reviewers
The manuscripts are reviewed by two or three Medical Experts or Medical Doctors so as to achieve the primary decision as soon as possible. The Reviewers don’t seem to be expected to supply an intensive linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to concentrate on its quality, similarly as for the general style, which should correspond to the great practices in clear and concise writing. If Reviewers identify that a manuscript contains linguistic edits, they need to inform the Authors and Editor both within the report.
Reviewers are asked to test whether the manuscript is medically sound and coherent, how interesting it’s and whether the standard of the medical writing is appropriate. Reviewers also are asked to point out which articles they bear in mind to be especially interesting or significant. These articles shall incline greater importance and superior external publicity.
Reviewers are asked to start out their report with a really brief summary of the reviewed paper, this can assist the Authors and Editors see whether the reviewer properly understood the paper or whether a report may well be supported by misinterpretation. Further, Reviewers are asked to treat originality, structure and former research: (1) Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a higher understanding of the subject under scrutiny? Is that the work rather confirmatory and repetitive? (2) Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that’s essential for a reader to know the aims, hypotheses tested, methods, and experimental design? Are our Methods and Materials clearly explained and adequately explained? Are the results clearly but briefly described or explained? Do they connect with the subject outlined within the introduction or heading? Do they follow a logical sequence? Do conclusions seem reasonable? Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that significant parts of the paper were copies of other works or writings?
Reviewers shall keep all information concerning papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. Reviewers shall express their views evidently with supporting arguments. Reviewers shall identify significant published work that has not been cited by the Authors.
Responsibility of Editors
Editors on Painosoma carry the most responsibility for the quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the publication’s scope. The Subject Editors aren’t expected to produce a radical linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to specialize in its scientific quality, still, because the overall approach, which should correspond to the nice quality practices in clear and brief writing. Editors are expected to identify small errors in orthography or stylistics during the editing process and proper them. Editors should consider the requirements of the Authors and therefore the Readers when attempting to enhance the publication. Editors should guarantee the standard of the papers and also the integrity of the educational record. Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers unless they later commit to disclosing their identities. Editors should make sure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. Editors should act if they believe in misconduct and make all reasonable attempts to get a resolution to the matter. Editors shouldn’t reject papers supporting suspicions; they ought to have proof of misconduct.
Authors aim to be accurate in their fact-checking, consulting multiple sources of their manuscripts to ensure that facts are backed by sound evidence. Depending on the nature of the fact-check required, the Authors may use internet tools like reverse image search or source data from official sources. Where necessary, the authors may also reach out to the relevant person to verify a claim. Writers must not quote anonymous sources.
Painosoma is updated regularly following a comprehensive review of medical doctors, clinical databases and other resources. Topics in Painosoma are revised whenever significant new information is published. Updates are incorporated carefully, with specific statements as to how the new research or new facts should be applied clinically after extensive peer review.
Do contact us for any queries.