Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Chronic Diseases Journal is an open access, biannual peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences.

The manuscripts on the topic of chronic and subacute medical and health conditions and diseases will be published in this journal. This contains all aspects of the chronic and subacute diseases such as control, planning, treatment, patient education, managing guides, policymaking, and biopsychosocial-spiritual factors. We invite you to submit your manuscript(s) to: http://cdjournal.muk.ac.ir/index.php/cdj/index

All the best,

Editor-in-Chief: Prof.  Fariba Farhadifar (MD)

Chronic Diseases Journal (CDJ)

http://www.muk.ac.ir/Muk.aspx

 


 

Section Policies

Index

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Original Article(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Article(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Report(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication(s)

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Brief Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter to the Editor

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Health Care System

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

CDJ offers an exceptionally fast publication schedule including prompt peer-review by the experts in the field and immediate publication upon acceptance. Quality and topic of submitted manuscript beside the priority of research field are the least considered criteria in each manuscript before entering in formal review process. Any type of submissions containing scientific information necessitates review process to ensure content quality.

Technical editor checks the format and style of manuscript prior to review process to assure its compatibility with CDJ guidelines for authors. Checking compatibility continues in whole of the review process and publication. In cases when the authors have not considered the guidelines, the manuscript will be sent back to the authors for compatibility. Each submitted manuscript will be considered by the editor-in-chief or one of associate editors in the editorial board. If it meets the minimum criteria to be included in review process, one of the editors (topic expert) selects at least two external reviewers for detailed evaluation process. Selection of reviewers is based on their scientific background and experience, previous works, authors’ suggestion, and expertise. Reviewers promise to undertake the confidentiality of materials previous to ePublication. In the review process of CDJ, reviewers stay anonymous. Also, authors could suggest reviewers for their manuscript.

Managing editor receives the reviewers’ comments and sends them along with decision letter to corresponding author. Final decision on each manuscript will be made by the assigned editor of the manuscript. As CDJ is a rapid response journal, so this process takes not more than three weeks. Decision letter determines the status of manuscript in five ways:

  1. Acceptance: The manuscript could be ePublished. This process lasts two weeks. Before ePublication, corresponding author could verify a proof copy of the paper. After ePublication, paper will be in a queue to be published in one of CDJ upcoming issues.

  2. Minor revision: Authors will receive comments upon their manuscript, at which point the authors will be asked to submit a revised copy beside cover letter showing authors’ rejoinders, and also a marked copy utilizing Track Changes in Review menu of Microsoft Word Documents. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Unless, authors need to go through a resubmission process.

  3. Major revision: It means a chance to reorganize the manuscript to meet the required scientific criteria for another review process. Authors should pay more attention to reviewers’ comments and focus on their highlighted points. Editor may/may not request the authors to resubmit their revised manuscript beside cover letter and a marked copy. Revised manuscript should be submitted in one month after decision letter. Otherwise, authors need to go through a resubmission process.

  4. Rejection: In most cases, methodological and scientific concerns are the main origins of rejection. Causes of rejection will be sent to the authors to provide more chance for them for publication in other journals.

  5. Withdraw: if the manuscript does not meet the scopes of CDJ, it will be withdrawn with suggestion to be sent to another journal.

CDJ may invite prominent experts to submit editorials or review papers in special topics, which will be reviewed by editors only. Also, commentaries may pass the same way in review process. In cases that concerns arise during review process about statistical test, methodology or techniques applied in research, editor may request independent internal/external experts to comment before final decisions. As the final point, we strongly suggest authors to observe research and publication ethics in their manuscript, as reporting of any unethical issue during steps of review may lead to the rejection of the work by CDJ. Also, the authors should consider that they are in the charge of all materials (scientific and ethical) that they provide in their articles.

All of editors and reviewers of CDJ do their utmost to keep the quality of disseminated scientific works to ensure the solid impact of papers on biomedical fields. In CDJ, the review process lasts maximum two month.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Section A: Publication and authorship
  1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
  2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
  3. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
  4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  7. No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal.

Section B: Authors' responsibilities
  1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
  3. Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
  4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  5. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
  6. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  7. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  8. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  9. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  10. Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
  11. Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

Section C: Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers
  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
  4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. Reviewers should not review 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.

Section D: Editorial responsibilities
  1. Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
  15. Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.

Section E: Publishing Ethics Issues
  1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
  2. Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
  3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
  4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
  5. Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.