IMCC Journal of Science

IMCC Journal of Science maintains rigorous ethical standards in both publication and research. We strictly follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers to guarantee integrity and transparency throughout the editorial process. Consequently, we will immediately reject any manuscript that violates these protocols. The journal also reserves the right to pursue legal action.

 

Ethical Considerations for Authors

Submission to the IMCC Journal of Science requires strict adherence to ethical standards. Authors must report findings with absolute objectivity and sufficient detail to facilitate replication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate representation constitutes a serious violation of academic integrity. We insist that the manuscript be entirely original and that any reliance on external sources receive precise attribution. While we do not accept manuscripts currently under review elsewhere, we will consider work previously posted on preprint servers or presented at conferences if the author discloses this history. Manuscripts derived from conference proceedings must demonstrate significant new data or analysis to warrant publication.

Authorship confers credit and entails strictly defined accountability based on criteria adapted from McNutt et al. (2018). To qualify, a researcher must have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, the acquisition and interpretation of data, or the creation of new software. Alternatively, drafting or substantively revising the work fulfills this requirement. Beyond intellectual input, every author must approve the submitted version and agree to be personally accountable for their own contributions. This accountability extends to ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Individuals who participated in the research but do not meet these specific conditions should appear in the acknowledgments section rather than the byline.

Once a paper is accepted, the journal does not permit changes to the author list or order. Exceptions are rare and require a formal letter to the Chief Editor justifying the modification. Finally, authors must be prepared to produce relevant data or documentation for verification if the editor requests it.

Ethical Considerations for Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers for the IMCC Journal of Science commit to a strict code of ethics that prioritizes academic integrity. This obligation begins with an impartial assessment of manuscripts based entirely on scholarly merit rather than personal bias. Throughout the process, the reviewer must maintain absolute confidentiality and refrain from appropriating any privileged information or novel concepts for private benefit. Objectivity remains paramount, as reviewers provide constructive feedback and clear arguments to help authors refine their work. Transparency is also essential, requiring the disclosure of any financial or personal connections that might compromise the integrity of the review. Lastly, reviewers are expected to communicate with the editor immediately if they lack the expertise to assess a specific topic or cannot adhere to the scheduled timeline.

Ethical Considerations for Human Subjects Research

IMCC Journal of Science is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research involving human subjects. Authors are required to adhere to the following guidelines to ensure the protection and welfare of all participants:

Informed Consent: Researchers must obtain informed consent from all participants involved in the study. The consent process should provide clear and comprehensive information about the research purpose, procedures, potential risks, benefits, and the participant’s rights, including the right to withdraw at any time without penalty.

Confidentiality and Privacy: Authors must ensure the confidentiality of participant data and respect their privacy. Any personal information collected during the study must be securely stored and de-identified when shared.

Ethics Approval: All research involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by an accredited institutional ethics review board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee prior to data collection. A statement of approval, including the IRB number, should be included in the manuscript.

Risk Minimization: Researchers are obligated to minimize any potential risks to participants. Studies must not expose participants to unnecessary harm, discomfort, or distress.

Vulnerable Populations: Special care must be taken when the research involves vulnerable populations, such as minors, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities. Additional safeguards must be in place to protect their rights and well-being.

A. Children and Minors

Parental or legal guardian consent is required for participation, alongside assent from the child, when age-appropriate. Language used in the consent and assent processes must be clear and understandable. Risks must be minimal unless the study offers direct and significant benefits to the child participant.

B. Pregnant Women

Research involving pregnant women must ensure that both the mother and fetus are protected from undue risks. Studies must be directly related to the health needs of pregnant women or the developing fetus to justify their inclusion. Informed consent must highlight any potential risks to the mother and fetus.

C. Elderly Individuals

Special consideration must be given to the cognitive and physical abilities of elderly participants. Informed consent processes must be sensitive to potential impairments in decision-making capacity. Studies must avoid coercion, ensuring that participation is entirely voluntary.

D. Persons with Disabilities

Researchers must ensure accessibility in the informed consent process, including providing materials in alternative formats (e.g., braille, large print, or audio). Studies must respect the autonomy of participants, taking care to avoid paternalistic attitudes or practices.

E. Economically or Educationally Disadvantaged Individuals

Researchers must avoid exploitation by ensuring that compensation for participation is not coercive. Consent forms must use plain language to accommodate participants with limited literacy or educational background.

Compliance with National and International Standards: Research must comply with national regulations and international ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Belmont Report, where applicable.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may influence the conduct or reporting of the research.

Transparency in Participant Compensation: If participants are compensated for their involvement, the nature and amount of compensation must be disclosed to the participants during the consent process and detailed in the manuscript.

Reporting Ethical Violations: Any breach of ethical standards discovered post-publication must be reported to the journal immediately for investigation and corrective action, which may include retraction of the article.

Policy on Clinical Trials

IMCC Journal of Science is committed to promoting the ethical conduct, transparency, and integrity of clinical trials in medical research. Submissions involving clinical trials must adhere to the following policies, ensuring alignment with international standards and best practices:

Clinical Trial Registration: All clinical trials submitted for publication must be registered in a publicly accessible and recognized trial registry before participant recruitment begins. Accepted registries include ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and other national or regional registries recognized by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The trial registration number and URL must be provided in the manuscript.

Ethical Approval and Oversight: Clinical trials must receive prior approval from a qualified Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Review Committee (ERC). Authors must include the name of the approving ethics board, the approval reference number, and a statement of compliance with ethical standards in the manuscript.

Informed Consent: Researchers must obtain written informed consent from all participants before enrollment. Consent forms must provide clear and comprehensive information about the trial’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, benefits, and participant rights, including the right to withdraw at any time. If participants are unable to provide consent (e.g., minors or incapacitated individuals), consent must be obtained from legally authorized representatives, with assent obtained where applicable.

Adherence to Good Clinical Practice (GCP): All clinical trials must adhere to the principles of Good Clinical Practice (GCP), as outlined by the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH-GCP). Researchers must demonstrate that they have implemented procedures to monitor and ensure participant safety throughout the trial.

Data Sharing and Transparency: Authors must commit to data sharing in line with ethical and legal guidelines. A data-sharing statement must be included in the manuscript, specifying whether individual participant data (IPD) will be shared, the conditions for access and use of shared data, and the repository or platform where the data will be available.

Reporting Standards: Manuscripts reporting clinical trial results must follow the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Authors should provide a CONSORT checklist and flow diagram during manuscript submission.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Transparency: Authors must disclose all sources of funding and any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the conduct or reporting of the trial. Funding sources must not have undue influence on the study design, data collection, or interpretation of results.

Post-Trial Access to Interventions: Researchers must outline plans for providing post-trial access to effective interventions, particularly for participants in low-resource settings. If no such access is planned, the manuscript must include a justification.

Adverse Event Reporting: Any adverse events or unexpected outcomes must be promptly reported to the relevant ethics committees, trial registries, and, where applicable, regulatory authorities. A summary of adverse events must be included in the manuscript.

Compliance with International Standards: Clinical trials must comply with international guidelines, including the Declaration of Helsinki, ICH-GCP Guidelines, and WHO and ICMJE standards for trial registration and reporting.

Retrospective Registration: Trials that were not registered prospectively may be considered for publication only if the authors provide a compelling justification and register the trial retrospectively in a recognized registry.

Rejection of Unethical Research: IMCC Journal of Science reserves the right to reject manuscripts reporting clinical trials that do not adhere to these policies or fail to protect the rights and safety of participants.

Image Integrity and Standards

The visual representation of data must accurately reflect the original experimental findings. Authors should regard digital images as data rather than mere illustrations. Consequently, the final figures must remain faithful to the original capture without introducing alterations that could obscure, move, remove, or introduce features. The journal strictly prohibits selective manipulation where only specific areas of an image are modified. Global adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are permissible only if they are applied uniformly to the entire image and do not mask important information. Any non-linear adjustments, such as changes to gamma settings, require explicit disclosure in the figure legend.

Images of gels and western blots must retain all relevant bands to allow for a complete evaluation of the experimental results. Cropping is allowed for clarity but should retain sufficient area around the bands of interest to provide context. If the authors restructure the image by splicing lanes together, they must clearly demarcate the alteration with a dividing line or white space. This separation signals to the reader that the lanes were not contiguous in the original experiment. Recombining lanes from different gels or exposures into a single figure is generally unacceptable unless the authors explain the composite nature of the image and the distinct experimental conditions.

Micrographs require special attention to scale and context. Authors must include scale bars in all microscopy images to facilitate size estimation. The use of touch-up tools to remove background noise or artifacts is forbidden, as this often compromises the integrity of the data. When creating composite images or montages from multiple fields of view, the authors must ensure that the resulting figure accurately represents the spatial relationships and intensity levels of the original samples. Any pseudo-coloring applied to distinguish multi-channel signals must be clearly described in the methodology.

The editorial office conducts forensic screening of submitted figures to detect potential irregularities such as duplication or selective enhancement. To facilitate this verification, authors must retain the original, unprocessed data files for a minimum of five years following publication. These raw files, often in proprietary formats from the instrument, may be requested by the editors or reviewers at any stage of the peer review process. Failure to provide the raw data upon request may lead to the rejection of the manuscript or the retraction of a published article.

Timeliness of Results

IMCC Journal of Science will not consider for publication manuscripts based on data sets where the last data point occurred more than five years prior to review by the journal. This policy is in place to ensure the timeliness of results published in the journal.

 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure and Competing Interests

IMCC Journal of Science requires all participants in the publication process to formally declare any relationships that could bias their work or influence their judgment. A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest, such as the validity of research, may be influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain or personal rivalry. Authors must provide a comprehensive statement disclosing all financial and non-financial competing interests relevant to the submitted work that occurred within the 36 months prior to submission. Financial interests include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, and research grants. Non-financial interests encompass personal relationships with the authors, academic competition, strong political or religious beliefs, and professional affiliations that might interfere with the objective presentation of data.

Peer reviewers and editors bear a similar responsibility to maintain the integrity of the evaluation process. Reviewers must decline invitations to assess a manuscript if they have collaborated with the authors recently, if they are in direct competition with the authors, or if they have a personal history that prevents an impartial review. Editors must recuse themselves from the decision-making process for any submission where they have a potential conflict of interest. In such cases, the authority to make the final editorial decision is delegated to another member of the Editorial Board who has no such conflicts.

The existence of a competing interest does not automatically result in the rejection of a manuscript. The Editorial Board prioritizes transparency and typically resolves these conflicts by publishing the author’s disclosure statement alongside the article to allow readers to evaluate the research with full context. However, failure to disclose a relevant interest at the time of submission constitutes a breach of publication ethics. If an undisclosed conflict is discovered post-publication, the Journal will issue a formal correction or, in severe cases, retract the article. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject any manuscript where the conflict of interest compromises the validity of the study beyond what can be remedied by simple disclosure.

Policy on Professional Conduct and Civil Discourse

Scholarly discourse thrives only within an environment of mutual respect and professional courtesy. Consequently, IMCC Journal of Science mandates that all correspondence between authors, reviewers, and editors remain strictly professional and free from personal attacks. This requirement extends to every stage of the publication process, including submission letters, peer review reports, and response-to-reviewer documents. Participants must focus their discourse exclusively on the scientific content and the intellectual merit of the work. Criticism is a necessary component of peer review, yet it must remain constructive and specific to the research methodology or interpretation rather than the character or competence of the researchers. Derogatory language, sarcasm, or dismissive remarks undermine the scientific process and are strictly prohibited.

The journal maintains a zero-tolerance stance regarding harassment or discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, or political philosophy. Any communication that contains hate speech, slurs, or intimidation will result in immediate intervention. Editors possess the authority to redact offensive language from review reports before transmitting them to authors to protect the dignity of the recipients. Furthermore, the use of aggressive or threatening language towards editorial staff will not be tolerated.

Adherence to these standards is a prerequisite for participation in the journal community. If a reviewer or author persists in using abusive language despite warnings, the Chief Editor reserves the right to take decisive action. This may include the rejection of the manuscript, the removal of the reviewer from the database, or a formal ban on future submissions. In cases of severe misconduct, the journal may also report the behavior to the institution of the offending party. This strict enforcement ensures that the peer review process remains a safe and productive space for intellectual exchange.

 

Policy for Investigating Complaints and Appeals

Allegations of Misconduct and Legal Concerns. IMCC Journal of Science maintains a rigorous protocol for the adjudication of complaints regarding copyright infringement, libel, intellectual property violations, or material inaccuracies. The receipt of a formal complaint initiates an immediate and confidential investigation by the Chief Editor, often in consultation with the Editorial Board or an independent ad hoc committee. This inquiry prioritizes due process and requires the submission of substantial evidence from the complainant to support their claims. Simultaneously, the authors in question receive an opportunity to provide a written response or explanation. The Journal operates under a presumption of good faith but reserves the right to employ plagiarism detection software and forensic image analysis to verify allegations.

The final determination regarding the removal or retraction of content rests on the strength of the evidence presented. A decision to retain the material signifies that the investigation found the complaint to lack sufficient merit or that a valid legal defense exists, such as fair use in copyright disputes or demonstrable truth in libel cases. Conversely, substantiated claims will result in immediate corrective action, which may include the publication of a correction, an expression of concern, or a formal retraction notice linked to the original article. The Journal commits to the preservation of all documentation related to the complaint and the subsequent investigation for archival and auditing purposes.

Appeals Against Editorial Decisions. Authors who believe that a decision to reject their manuscript resulted from a significant procedural error or a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific content may submit a formal appeal. This mechanism serves to correct specific irregularities rather than to provide a second opinion on valid editorial judgment. The appeal must take the form of a detailed written letter to the Chief Editor that clearly refutes the rejection grounds with new data or specific citations. A simple disagreement with the priority or novelty assessment of the reviewers does not constitute valid grounds for an appeal.

The Chief Editor assesses the validity of the appeal request. If the claim holds merit, the manuscript may undergo re-evaluation by an independent reviewer who remains blind to the previous decision. However, the Chief Editor rarely overturns a rejection delivered by an Associate Editor if the original process adhered to standard peer review protocols. The decision rendered by the Chief Editor on any appeal is final, and the Journal will not entertain further correspondence regarding the same manuscript.

 

Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

IMCC Journal of Science recognizes the importance of clarity and accuracy in the scholarly record. To uphold these principles, the journal adheres to established guidelines for addressing errors, retracting flawed articles, and expressing concerns regarding published content.

Corrections. Minor errors in published articles may be rectified through corrigenda or errata. These corrections, authorized by the Chief Editor, inform readers of the error and provide a definitive solution. Corrigenda and errata are published as separate articles in the journal and linked to the original publication.

Retractions. Retractions are considered and implemented when an article contains severe errors that invalidate its conclusions or when there is evidence of publication malpractice, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research. IMCC Journal of Science follows industry best practices and adheres to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in handling retractions:

1. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” is published in a subsequent issue of the journal. This note is signed by the authors and/or the editor and explicitly states the reason for retraction.
2. A link is established in the electronic version of the retraction note, directing readers to the original article.
3. The online version of the original article is preceded by a screen displaying the retraction notice. This screen serves as the landing page for the article, allowing readers to proceed to the retracted content with full awareness of its status.
4. The original article remains unchanged, except for a watermark on each page of the PDF indicating its retracted status.

Withdrawals. Authors may withdraw articles before they are formally accepted for publication. Additionally, Online First Articles (early versions of articles that may contain errors or accidental duplicates) may be withdrawn if they are found to violate journal publishing ethics guidelines. However, once an article has been published under a specific issue, it cannot be withdrawn.

Editorial Expressions of Concern. When substantial doubt arises regarding the integrity of a submitted or published article, journal editors may issue an expression of concern. This action is taken only if an investigation has proven inconclusive but strong indications of validity remain. In rare cases, an editorial expression of concern may be issued while an investigation is ongoing. Expressions of concern are linked to the relevant published article.

Article Removal: Legal Limitations. In extremely rare circumstances, an article may need to be removed from the online database. This will only occur if the article is clearly defamatory, infringes upon others’ legal rights, is the subject of a court order, or poses a serious health risk if acted upon. In such cases, the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, but the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article’s removal for legal reasons.

Article Replacement. If an article poses a serious health risk but can be corrected, the authors may choose to retract the flawed original and replace it with a revised version. The retraction procedures will be followed, with the exception that the database retraction notice will include a link to the corrected re-published article and a detailed history of the document.

Policy on Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models

Authorship and Accountability. IMCC Journal of Science does not recognize artificial intelligence, machine learning algorithms, or large language models as authors. Authorship intrinsically implies the ability to approve the final version of a manuscript and the capacity to take public responsibility for its content, integrity, and accuracy. As non-legal entities, AI tools cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, nor can they hold copyright. Consequently, any manuscript listing an AI tool as a co-author will require immediate correction or face rejection. The human authors retain full accountability for all aspects of their work, including any parts produced with the assistance of AI.

Disclosure and Transparency. Transparency remains the cornerstone of this policy. Authors who utilize AI tools in the drafting of text, production of images, or collection of data must disclose this explicitly. This declaration belongs in the Methods section or the Acknowledgments. The disclosure should specify the exact tool used, the version number, and the specific application of the technology within the research process. For instance, if a language model assisted in editing the abstract or generating code for statistical analysis, the author must state this clearly. Failure to disclose significant AI use constitutes a breach of publication ethics.

Generative AI in Images and Figures. The submission of images, figures, or graphical abstracts created by generative AI tools is generally prohibited. These tools often rely on datasets that may infringe upon copyright or present unverified information. Exceptions apply only if the AI-generated imagery is the central subject of the research itself. In such cases, the authors must provide a reproducible method for how the image was generated, including the prompts used. All images must otherwise originate from the authors’ direct research or be legally licensed from verifiable sources.

Usage by Peer Reviewers. Peer reviewers operate under a strict obligation of confidentiality. Uploading a submitted manuscript or any portion of it into an AI tool, such as a public large language model, violates this confidentiality. These platforms may retain the data for training purposes, which effectively leaks the authors’ unpublished work. Therefore, reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review reports or to evaluate the scientific merit of a paper. The critical assessment of a manuscript requires human judgment, expertise, and accountability that automated systems cannot provide.

Editorial Use and Decision Making. Editors may employ AI tools for screening purposes, such as plagiarism detection or basic language quality checks, provided these tools comply with data privacy standards. However, the final editorial decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests solely with human editors. AI tools must not determine the scope, fit, or scientific validity of a submission. Editors are responsible for ensuring that any automated screening does not introduce bias or compromise the integrity of the review process.