•  
  •  
 

Editorial Policies

The Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) adheres to the highest standards of ethical publishing and the guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal supports the principles outlined in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, along with the GPP3 guidelines on authorship. Submission of a manuscript signifies that all authors have reviewed and approved its content and that it aligns with the journal’s editorial policies.

Advertisements

The SQUMJ maintains a strict no-advertising policy and does not accept advertisements from third parties. This ensures the journal's focus remains solely on publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed academic research without external commercial influence.

Back to Top

Affiliations

Affiliations must accurately indicate the institution where the study was approved, supported, and/or carried out. For non-research articles, the affiliation should correspond to the institution where the author(s) were located at the time of submission. Any attempt to misrepresent affiliation will be regarded as misconduct, and the journal will take appropriate action by reaching out to the relevant institutions to assist in the investigation.

Back to Top

Appeals and Complaints

The Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) values fair and transparent handling of all appeals and complaints related to the editorial process. We strive to ensure that any concerns raised by authors are addressed promptly and thoroughly.

Back to Top

Submitting an Appeal or Complaint

Authors are encouraged to submit their appeals or complaints directly via email to: .

Back to Top

Information to Include

To facilitate a thorough review and resolution, please provide as much detail as possible in your email. The information should include, but is not limited to:

  • Manuscript Title: Clearly state the title of the manuscript in question.
  • Manuscript ID: Provide the unique identification number assigned to your manuscript during submission (if available).
  • Detailed Description: Explain the nature of your appeal or complaint. This may involve:
    • Rejection of Manuscript: If appealing a decision, specify the reasons for your appeal and any supporting evidence or arguments.
    • Publication Process: Describe any issues encountered during the publication process, such as delays or concerns regarding review fairness.
    • Other Issues: Highlight any additional matters requiring attention.

Back to Top

Review Process

Upon receipt, your appeal or complaint will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. The review process involves:

  1. Initial Acknowledgment: You will receive a confirmation of receipt within five work days.
  2. Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the details provided, consulting relevant editors or reviewers if necessary.
  3. Decision: You will be notified of the decision regarding your appeal or complaint within 10 work days of acknowledgment. This decision is final.

For more information about post-publication corrections, please click here.

Back to Top

Acknowledgment

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Their contributions may include technical support, writing assistance, or general support.

Back to Top

Authorship

Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) adheres to the authorship criteria set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). To qualify for authorship, contributors must meet all of the following four criteria:

  1. Substantial Contributions: Authors must have made significant contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
  2. Drafting and Revising: Authors must have contributed to drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
  3. Final Approval: Authors must have given their final approval of the version to be published, ensuring that they are fully satisfied with the integrity and accuracy of the work.
  4. Accountability: Authors must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Back to Top

Additional Considerations

  • Non-Qualifying Contributions: Contributions that do not meet all four criteria, such as acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, or administrative support, do not justify authorship. Such contributions should be acknowledged in the manuscript.
  • Group Authorship: For large multi-author collaborations, the group should identify individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should meet all the criteria for authorship and should list their specific contributions.
  • Corresponding Author: The corresponding author is responsible for the communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. They ensure that all administrative requirements of the journal, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms, are properly completed. They should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way.

Back to Top

Any changes to authorship, whether before or after publication, must be approved by all authors involved, including those being added or removed. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining consent from all co-authors and providing a valid reason for the requested change. If authorship adjustments are needed after acceptance, a standard form must be completed, including a legitimate justification for the change and signatures from all co-authors. Changes to authorship after publication will be addressed through a post-publication notice. All authorship modifications must align with the journal’s authorship criteria, and requests for significant changes after acceptance may be denied if adequate justification and evidence of author contributions are not provided.

Back to Top

Authorship Disputes

In cases of authorship disputes, SQUMJ follows COPE guidelines for resolving conflicts. If disputes arise, the authors are encouraged to seek resolution among themselves, but if necessary, they may contact the SQUMJ Editorial Team for mediation.

Back to Top

Authorship Contributions

Contributors are required to outline their specific roles and contributions to the manuscript. This should be broken down into relevant categories, such as concept development, study design, intellectual content definition, literature review, clinical and experimental studies, data collection, data analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript writing, editing, and review. SQUMJ follows the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CReDiT) classification system to ensure transparency in author contributions. For more details, authors may refer to the CReDiT system .

Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research is presented accurately, transparently, and objectively, with underlying data reported truthfully without fabrication, manipulation, or selective reporting of results, and they should be prepared to provide access to raw data upon request and retain all relevant data for at least two years following publication to facilitate transparency and verification of research findings. All submissions to SQUMJ must be original works that properly acknowledge prior research contributions; plagiarism in any form—including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without citation, or self-plagiarism—is a serious violation of publication ethics, and manuscripts must not be submitted to multiple journals simultaneously as redundant or duplicate publication is deemed unethical. Authors must disclose all funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the study’s outcomes or interpretation, ensuring credibility and accountability in scientific research through transparent reporting of financial and institutional support. Authorship should be granted only to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, with the corresponding author ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agreed to its submission, while individuals who contributed but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be appropriately acknowledged. If an author becomes aware of a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they have an ethical obligation to notify the journal immediately, with SQUMJ working with the author to issue a correction or retraction if necessary, and post-publication updates, clarifications, and errata handled transparently to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Back to Top

Citations

Both research and non-research articles must reference relevant, up-to-date, and credible literature (preferably peer-reviewed, where applicable) to substantiate any claims made within the manuscript. Authors should avoid excessive self-citation or coordinated efforts among author groups to cite each other’s work inappropriately, as this constitutes citation manipulation, a form of misconduct. For guidance, refer to the COPE guidance on citation manipulation.

For non-research articles (such as Reviews or Opinions), authors should ensure that the references cited are pertinent and offer a balanced, comprehensive overview of the current research or scholarly work on the topic. References should not disproportionately favor any specific research group, organization, or journal.

If you are uncertain about whether to include a particular source, please reach out to the journal’s editorial office for guidance.

Back to Top

Clinical Trials Registration and Ethical Approval

In accordance with international research ethics guidelines, all clinical trials involving human participants must be registered in a publicly accessible database, such as ClinicalTrials.gov, before enrolling participants. This aligns with the ICMJE and World Health Organization (WHO) standards to ensure transparency and accountability in clinical research. Ethical approval from a recognized Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee is required, ensuring that the trial design respects participants’ rights, safety, and informed consent. Researchers must also comply with local regulations and institutional policies.

At SQUMJ, we require that all clinical trials involving human subjects are registered in a publicly accessible database. However, to maintain a blinded review process, the registration number should not be included in the manuscript upon submission. Additionally, ethical approval and informed consent statements must be clearly provided at the end of the Methods section.

Back to Top

Conflict of Interest

SQUMJ is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and transparency. To maintain the integrity of the publication process, the following conflict of interest policies are in place for editors, authors, and reviewers:

  • Editors: Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including personal, academic, or financial interests that could affect their decisions. If a conflict exists, the editor must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript. Editorial decisions are based solely on the manuscript's scientific merit and relevance to the journal’s scope.
  • Authors: Authors are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be perceived to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of funding for the research must be disclosed. Authors should ensure that any conflicts of interest are detailed in the manuscript's conflict of interest statement as well as in the required standard cover letter.
  • Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. This includes any personal, academic, or financial interests that could affect their impartiality. If a conflict is present, the reviewer should decline the review invitation.

Adherence to these policies ensures the integrity and credibility of the peer review and publication processes. All disclosed conflicts of interest will be managed in accordance with COPE and ICMJE guidelines to ensure a fair and unbiased review process.

For any complaints, please contact the SQUMJ Editorial Team at . All complaints will be discussed by the Editorial Team and appropriate actions will be taken.

For more information about ethical misconduct please refer to the following articles:

  • Al Lamki L. Ethics in Scientific Publication: Plagiarism and other Scientific Misconduct. Oman Med J 2013; 28(6):379-81. VIEW ARTICLE.

  • Al-Adawi S, Ali BH, Al-Zakwani I. Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish. Oman Med J 2016; 31(1):5-11. VIEW ARTICLE.

Back to Top

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Occasionally, it may be necessary to amend a published article after its final version has been released. Any such changes will be carefully considered by the Editor, with support from the journal staff, to ensure compliance with the guidelines established by the Guidance on Publication Ethics Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These modifications will be accompanied by a permanent post-publication notice, which will be linked to the original article. The types of notices that may be issued include a Correction (Corrigendum or Erratum), an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, or, in exceptional cases, a Removal. This process ensures transparency and maintains the integrity of the scholarly record.

A Correction notice will be issued when an error or omission impacts the interpretation of the article but does not compromise its scholarly integrity. Examples include mislabeling figures or missing information such as funding details or conflicts of interest. Two types of correction notices are used: a Corrigendum for errors introduced by the authors, and an Erratum for errors introduced by the publisher.

A Retraction notice will be issued when a significant error (such as flaws in analysis or methodology) invalidates the conclusions of the article, or when research misconduct or publication misconduct is identified (e.g., lack of ethical approvals, fabricated data, image manipulation, plagiarism, or duplicate publication). The decision to retract an article will follow COPE Retraction Guidelines, and authors or institutions may also request a retraction if their reasons meet the necessary criteria.

For all retractions, the following steps will be taken:

  • The retraction notice and the original article will be linked in both directions.
  • The retracted article will be clearly marked.
  • Both the HTML and PDF versions of the original article will be digitally watermarked with "Retracted."
  • A clear explanation for the retraction will be provided.
  • The person(s) requesting the retraction, such as the authors or the Editor, will be identified.

Retractions are intended to correct the literature and uphold the integrity of the publication record, not to punish authors. They will not typically be issued to resolve authorship disputes; in such cases, a Corrigendum will be issued, provided the authors can justify the change, often with institutional support.

In cases where major concerns have been raised (such as serious research or publication misconduct), but the investigation is ongoing or inconclusive, an Expression of Concern notice may be issued. Once the investigation concludes, a Retraction or Correction notice may follow, and all documents will remain part of the permanent published record.

A Removal notice is issued in very rare cases when a Retraction or Correction is insufficient to address the issue. This could occur if the article contains defamatory content, infringes on legal rights, or is subject to a court order. In such instances, the article will be removed from the journal’s online platform, and a Removal notice will be issued in its place.

This process ensures that any necessary changes to published content are made transparently and in accordance with ethical guidelines, preserving the integrity of the scholarly record.

Back to Top

For any manuscript that includes personal details or images of an individual, informed consent must be obtained from the individual (or their parent or legal guardian if the individual is under 18 years old) for the publication of this information. The consent must explicitly allow the publication under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license, ensuring that the details will be freely accessible online. In the case of a deceased individual, consent must be obtained from their next of kin. The manuscript must include a statement confirming that written informed consent for publication has been obtained.

Back to Top

Confidentiality

At SQUMJ, we place the utmost importance on maintaining the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. We are committed to safeguarding the privacy of all submissions throughout the review and publication process.

A submitted manuscript is considered confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone outside the individuals directly involved in the processing and preparation of the manuscript for publication (if accepted). These individuals include editorial staff, corresponding authors, reviewers, and editors. In cases where misconduct is suspected, the manuscript may be shared with members of the journal's ethics committees or relevant institutions/organizations to assist in resolving the issue. SQUMJ adheres to the appropriate COPE flowcharts when necessary to handle such situations.

Back to Top

Copyright of the accepted manuscripts will transfer from the authors to the Journal (for full details see the Copyright Transfer Section in the standard SQUMJ Covering Letter).

Copyright covers all publication forms and media, and takes effect as soon as a manuscript is accepted for publication in SQUMJ. Upon publication in online format on the SQUMJ website, authors retain the same rights as other users under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license, allowing them to share and distribute their work provided that proper attribution is given and no modifications or derivatives are made.

Back to Top

Who Can Submit?

At SQUMJ, we welcome submissions from anyone who holds the copyright to their work or has been authorized by the copyright owner(s) to submit the manuscript for consideration. Authors are generally the initial owners of the copyright to their manuscripts before publication, except in cases where, as part of their employment agreement, they have transferred copyright ownership to their employer (typically in non-academic contexts). All submissions must comply with these copyright ownership requirements.

Back to Top

User Rights

Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles under the following conditions: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. The copyright statement is also embedded in each published article.

Back to Top

Open Access Policy

SQUMJ is committed to an open access policy, which ensures that all of our published articles are freely accessible to readers worldwide. This policy reflects our dedication to the unrestricted sharing of knowledge, allowing researchers, healthcare professionals, and the general public to access high-quality medical research without any barriers. By making all content openly available, we aim to foster global collaboration, enhance the visibility of groundbreaking studies, and contribute to the advancement of medical science and healthcare practices.

Our open access approach not only benefits the academic community but also supports the broader dissemination of knowledge that can lead to improvements in patient care, public health, and medical education. We believe that making research freely available encourages innovation, facilitates the exchange of ideas, and ensures that vital information reaches those who need it most. SQUMJ’s open access policy is designed to maximize the impact of research and to make it accessible to all, regardless of location or institutional affiliation.

Back to Top

Creative Commons License

The Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) publishes all articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0) license. This license permits others to share, copy, and redistribute the articles in any medium or format, provided proper credit is given to the original authors and SQUMJ, and the work is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. By ensuring the integrity of the original work while allowing wide dissemination, this license benefits authors by safeguarding their content from unauthorized modifications and amplifying their reach. It also supports the academic community by providing free and reliable access to high-quality research. The CC BY-ND statement is included in all article PDFs to ensure transparency and clarity.

Back to Top

Author Rights

In accordance with the terms outlined in our standard Covering Letter, authors transfer all copyright of the article to SQUMJ upon acceptance for publication. The publisher is then granted the rights to publish and distribute the article.

Back to Top

Data Falsification/Fabrication

Data manipulation or fabrication, where intentional actions are taken to distort or falsify data, is regarded as a severe form of misconduct. Such actions are designed to deceive others and undermine the integrity of the scholarly record, with far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions.

When submitting a manuscript to SQUMJ, authors must ensure that all data presented is accurate and faithfully reflects their research. To support the journal's evaluation process, authors are expected to retain all raw data associated with their manuscript.

If the original data cannot be provided upon request, the manuscript may be rejected, or, if already published, the article may be retracted.

Back to Top

Data Sharing Policy

SQUMJ is committed to promoting and facilitating the sharing of research data to support transparency, collaboration, and the advancement of scientific knowledge. We encourage researchers to share their data promptly and appropriately, and we continuously improve our submission processes to make this easier.

  1. Encouraging Prompt Data Sharing: We support researchers in sharing their data at the earliest opportunity, ensuring it is accessible for reuse and further research.
  2. Standardized Data Guidelines: To help authors navigate data storage and sharing, we provide clear, standardized guidelines that promote optimal access and reuse of research data.
  3. Proper Data Citation: We advocate for proper data citation practices to ensure researchers receive appropriate credit for their data-sharing efforts.
  4. Data Review Practices: We collaborate with the scientific community to establish robust data review processes that ensure research data is valid, well-documented, and suitable for reuse.
  5. Publishing Research Data: We encourage the publication of research data as separate, peer-reviewed outputs to enhance its reusability and provide additional recognition for authors.

Through these initiatives, we aim to foster a culture of responsible and transparent data sharing, ensuring that research data contributes to the broader scientific community.

Back to Top

Data Availability Statements

Authors must include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscripts, specifying where the data supporting the study’s findings can be accessed or providing a rationale if the data cannot be shared. Below are examples of acceptable statements:

  1. Data Accessible in a Public Repository: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during this study are available in the [NAME] repository at [PERSISTENT LINK TO DATASETS].
  2. Data Available Upon Request: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during this study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
  3. No Data Available: No datasets were generated or analyzed during this study.

Back to Top

Desk Rejection Policy

At SQUMJ, we strive to ensure that only high-quality manuscripts are considered for peer review. In some cases, manuscripts may be rejected at the editorial stage, prior to formal peer review. This process is known as desk rejection. Desk rejection is typically based on factors such as lack of alignment with the journal’s scope, significant ethical issues, or failure to meet submission guidelines. By implementing this policy, we aim to maintain the integrity and quality of the research published in our journal.

Reasons for Rejection

  1. The topic or scope of the study is not aligned with the focus of the Journal.
  2. There are ethical issues, non-compliance with international guidelines, or plagiarism (with a similarity index exceeding 30%).
  3. The topic lacks sufficient impact or does not contribute new knowledge to the field.
  4. The study design contains significant flaws.
  5. The objective of the study is not clearly defined.
  6. The structure of the manuscript is problematic, or key components are missing.
  7. There are issues with writing, including grammatical errors or stylistic inconsistencies.
  8. The manuscript does not adhere to the Journal’s submission guidelines.

Back to Top

Duplicate Submission/Publication

Authors must declare that the manuscript is not under review elsewhere upon submission. The detection of a duplicate submission or publication is considered intentional misconduct. This includes articles previously published in another language. For acceptable secondary submissions (e.g., a translated article), authors must obtain permission from the original publisher and copyright holder, inform the Editor of the receiving journal about the article's history, and clearly indicate that the manuscript is a translated version, citing the original article accordingly.

Back to Top

Funding

Authors are required to disclose all sources of financial support received for their research in the manuscript. This includes detailing the role, if any, of the sponsor(s) in various stages of the study, from design to manuscript submission. If the sponsor(s) had no involvement, this should also be clearly stated. Authors should ensure that the funding information is accurate and aligns with the requirements of the funding organizations.

Back to Top

Images and Figures

Photographs, videos, or audio recordings that reveal the identity of study participants can only be included in the manuscript if explicit consent to publish has been obtained. In the case of deceased participants, consent must be provided by the next of kin, and for minors or vulnerable individuals, consent must come from parents or legal guardians. Authors must also consider cultural sensitivities when including images, especially those that may be subject to ethical or cultural restrictions, such as images of human remains or deceased individuals.

Experimental images, such as those from microscopy, must accurately represent the original data. Any modifications to images, such as enhancements, must be disclosed within the manuscript and figure legend to prevent misleading interpretations. Authors should be ready to provide the original, unmodified, uncropped images upon request by the editorial office. Modifications are only acceptable if they are minor and applied consistently across the entire image, and the image-gathering process, including software used, must be described in detail.

If any images or figures are reused from previously published sources, authors must obtain the necessary permissions from the copyright holder and include a statement of permission in the figure legend. The original source of the image must be cited, even if the image is not under copyright or is licensed for unrestricted reuse.

Back to Top

Misconduct

Following the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), SQUMJ defines scientific misconduct as:

  • Falsifying data: inventing data, selective reporting, or omission, suppression or distortion of data.
  • Authorship issues: exclusion of involved researchers, or inclusion of researchers who have not contributed to the work, or publication without permission from all authors.
  • Disregard for generally accepted research practice: including manipulating experiments/statistics to get biased results, or improper reporting of results.
  • Failure to follow legal requirements: violating local regulations and laws involving the use of funds, copyright, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biological, or chemical materials.
  • Inappropriate behaviour in cases of misconduct: including false accusations of misconduct; failure to report misconduct; not providing information relevant to a misconduct claim, and retaliation against people claiming or investigating misconduct.
  • Plagiarism: using the published or unpublished language, ideas, or thoughts of another writer without reference or permission, and presenting them as one’s own. (more about our plagiarism policy HERE)

SQUMJ takes all these forms of misconduct extremely seriously. It follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) & International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. The final decision on the action is taken by the Editor-in-Chief.

Back to Top

Duplicate Submission

Manuscripts that are found to have been previously published or are under review elsewhere will be subject to sanctions for duplicate submission or publication. If authors have based their submitted manuscript on previously published or under-review work, they must properly cite the prior work and clearly explain how the new submission contributes novel findings beyond the original work.

Back to Top

Citation Manipulation

Manuscripts found to contain citations whose primary intent is to artificially inflate citation counts for a particular author or journal will face sanctions for citation manipulation.

Back to Top

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Any manuscript that involves the fabrication or falsification of data, including the manipulation of images, will face sanctions for data fabrication and falsification.

Back to Top

Improper Author Contribution or Attribution

All listed authors must have made a substantial scientific contribution to the research presented in the manuscript and must have approved all claims made in the manuscript. It is essential that anyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians, is listed as an author.

Back to Top

Redundant Publications

Redundant publications involve dividing study results into multiple articles inappropriately. This practice will be subject to sanctions.

Back to Top

Image Manipulation

Deliberate manipulation or falsification of images is a serious form of misconduct that can mislead readers and damage the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal expects all images in manuscripts to be accurate and free from manipulation. Any modifications, such as enhancing, obscuring, moving, or removing specific features of an image, must be disclosed. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable only if they do not distort or misrepresent the original data. If images are sourced from different parts of gels, western blots, or microscope images, this must be clearly stated in the figure legend

If authors cannot provide the original, unedited images upon request, the manuscript may be declined or retracted.

Back to Top

Publication Ethics

At SQUMJ, we uphold the highest standards of publication ethics, ensuring integrity, transparency, and fairness throughout the editorial and peer review process. Our ethical framework aligns with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), reinforcing our commitment to responsible research dissemination. We take scientific misconduct seriously, including but not limited to plagiarism, data falsification, redundant publication, and authorship disputes, and we implement appropriate measures to address any breaches. Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to adhere to these ethical principles, fostering trust within the academic and medical communities. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final authority in matters concerning publication ethics and ensures that ethical policies are upheld in every aspect of the journal’s operations.

The editorial board at SQUMJ is responsible for evaluating submitted manuscripts based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical compliance. Manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review process, and final decisions are guided by reviewer feedback, adherence to ethical standards, and legal considerations including copyright and plagiarism policies. Decisions remain free from bias and are not influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or religious background, underscoring the importance of editorial independence in upholding the integrity of scientific publishing.

Editors maintain strict confidentiality throughout the submission and peer review process by sharing manuscripts only with individuals directly involved, such as corresponding authors, reviewers, and editorial advisors when necessary. They refrain from using any information or unpublished material for personal research or advantage without the explicit written consent of the authors, and they disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could potentially influence editorial decisions. When conflicts arise, editors recuse themselves from handling the manuscript to ensure an unbiased review process.

SQUMJ is committed to an impartial, objective, and fair peer review process. Clear policies are in place to prevent conflicts of interest—including specific procedures for handling submissions from members of the editorial board—and authors are provided with transparent guidelines for manuscript preparation, authorship criteria, and research ethics compliance, ensuring that every submission undergoes thorough scrutiny before publication.

Reviewers play a vital role in upholding ethical standards by assessing research validity and identifying potential concerns such as data manipulation, redundant publication, or unethical research practices. Their feedback is conveyed to authors in full, unless it includes defamatory, inappropriate, or unprofessional content. The journal values the expertise and dedication of its reviewers, engaging only those who meet the highest professional and ethical standards.

To further uphold the credibility of published research, the editorial team verifies that studies have received approval from the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees when applicable, rigorously protects intellectual property rights, and takes corrective actions—including retractions or corrections—when ethical or legal concerns arise. In cases of serious misconduct, appropriate measures are implemented in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Back to Top

Peer Review Policy & Process

Peer Review Policy

Each manuscript submitted to the Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) undergoes an initial evaluation for completeness and adherence to format standards. Following this, an Editor reviews the submission to determine its eligibility for peer review. In instances where an Editor is listed as an author or has a conflicting interest with a particular manuscript, another Editorial Board member will be appointed to manage the peer review process. The decision-making process involves Editors considering the feedback from peer reviews, though they are not strictly obliged to follow these recommendations or opinions. A manuscript may be declined based on the concerns of either a single peer reviewer or the Editor. Authors are provided with the peer review comments along with the editorial decision regarding their manuscript.

For conference proceedings papers, the review process is conducted by the Programme Chairs and Committee members of the respective conference, who may also enlist the assistance of external reviewers.

Back to Top

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

In the world of scientific publishing, peer reviewers are crucial for their expert assessments and advice, aiding editors in making informed decisions and ensuring the research they publish is sound, thorough, and trustworthy. Peer reviewers are chosen primarily for their deep understanding of the subject or methodologies of the manuscripts they review, a proficiency that is both unique and indispensable. They bear responsibility for the precision and opinions in their reviews, and the peer review system relies on a reciprocal trust among authors, reviewers, and editors.

Although there has been significant advancement in generative AI technologies, these tools have notable shortcomings, such as outdated information, and the potential for generating nonsensical, biased, or incorrect content. Additionally, manuscripts might contain confidential or proprietary data that shouldn't be disclosed beyond the peer review process. Consequently, while SQUMJ is considering the provision of secure AI tools to our peer reviewers, we request that reviewers refrain from uploading manuscripts into generative AI systems.

Should any aspect of the manuscript's claim evaluation be aided by an AI tool, we ask reviewers to openly disclose the use of such tools in their peer review report.

Back to Top

Peer Reviewer Selection

The selection of peer reviewers is a pivotal aspect of the publication process, influenced by various factors such as expertise, reputation, specific endorsements, potential conflicts of interest, and past performance. Desirable traits in peer reviewers include promptness, thoroughness, logical reasoning, and a collaborative spirit.

Back to Top

Editorial Responsibilities

  • Editors are generally expected to secure at least three peer reviewers for manuscripts presenting primary research or secondary analysis of primary data. However, particularly in specialized or emerging fields, finding three independent reviewers may be challenging. In such situations, editors might decide to proceed with publication based on one or two peer reviews. Decisions based on a single review should only occur if that review adheres to the following standards.
  • Reviews should be in English, offering constructive and critical analysis of the author's work, particularly regarding the suitability of methods, accuracy of results, and whether conclusions are backed by the results. Decisions should hinge on reviews meeting these criteria, rather than those which are brief, superficial, and lack a rationale for their recommendations.
  • It's incumbent upon editors to validate the contact details of reviewers recommended by authors or third parties. Institutional email addresses are preferred for contacting reviewers. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least two reviewers not proposed by the author.
  • Non-research manuscripts like Editorials, Commentaries, or Opinion pieces might be accepted without peer review. These should be evaluated by the editors if the topic falls within their expertise; otherwise, assessment by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member is required.
  • In exceptional cases where two independent reviewers are unattainable, the editor may serve as a second reviewer or base a decision on a single report.
  • Editors acting as second reviewers must have substantial knowledge in the relevant field.
  • Any solo reports should be comprehensive and detailed.
  • The primary reviewer should be experienced, relevant to the topic, and have recent publications in the subject area.

    • Potential reviewers must inform the editorial team of any conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. Communications between editors and reviewers are confidential and should not be disclosed to external parties.

    SQUMJ permits authors to propose potential reviewers and request the exclusion of certain individuals or groups (typically up to two). Editors will take these suggestions into account but are not obligated to comply. The editor's decision on reviewer selection is definitive.

    Authors should avoid recommending recent collaborators or colleagues from their own institution. Editors will need information to confirm the reviewer's identity and expertise, including their institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.

    Back to Top

    Peer Reviewer Misconduct

    Engaging in deceptive practices, such as misrepresenting identity or recommending fictitious peer reviewers, will lead to the manuscript's rejection, a thorough inquiry as per the misconduct policy of Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ), and informing the respective institutions or employers of the authors. SQUMJ adheres to the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Additional details on peer review deception or fabrication are available here.

    Back to Top

    Peer Review Model

    SQUMJ employs a double-blinded peer review model. While most journals opt for a single-blinded approach, where authors' identities are visible to reviewers but reviewers remain anonymous to authors, SQUMJ's process conceals the identity of both parties. In this double-blinded system, neither the authors nor the peer reviewers know each other's identities. Additionally, the pre-publication history of the articles is kept confidential and is not published online.

    Back to Top

    Peer Reviewer Guidance

    The primary goal of peer review is to assist the Editor in making a fair, evidence-based decision that aligns with the journal's editorial standards. Review reports should also aid authors in refining their paper for potential publication. Reports recommending rejection must highlight the key weaknesses of the research to help authors improve their manuscript for submission elsewhere.

    Peer reviewers are expected to follow COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers, available here.

    Comments intended for the Editor alone are permissible, but they should not contradict the primary content of the author's report.

    Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely based on the journal’s publication criteria.

    Reviewers should observe the following standards:

    • Familiarize themselves with SQUMJ's peer review policy before accepting a review assignment.
    • Maintain objectivity in their reviews.
    • Avoid personal criticism of the author; defamatory or libellous comments are inappropriate.
    • Clearly articulate their views with supporting evidence and references.
    • Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
    • Refrain from reviewing manuscripts where a conflict of interest might exist due to relationships with any authors, companies, or institutions involved.
    • Keep the manuscript's content confidential and not discuss it with others or use the information for personal benefit.
    • Contact the journal first if wishing to delegate a review invitation to a colleague.
    • Communicate any concerns about these guidelines or the review process to the editorial team.

    Back to Top

    Reviewers are asked to consider the following aspects of a manuscript:

    Reviewers are asked to consider the following aspects of a manuscript:

    • Key results: Summarize the most significant aspects of the work.
    • Validity: Identify any flaws that could prevent publication.
    • Originality and significance: If conclusions are not original, provide relevant references.
    • Data & methodology: Comment on the approach's validity, data quality, and presentation. Reviewers should evaluate all data, including supplementary information, and assess the reporting's detail and transparency.
    • Use of statistics and handling of uncertainties: Confirm the definition of error bars in figure legends and comment on the suitability of statistical tests and accuracy of error bars and probability values.
    • Conclusions: Assess the robustness, validity, and reliability of conclusions and data interpretation.
    • Inflammatory material: Check for inappropriate or potentially libellous language.
    • Suggested improvements: List possible enhancements to strengthen the work.
    • References: Evaluate the appropriateness of cited literature.
    • Clarity and context: Assess the clarity of the abstract and the appropriateness of the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.
    • Scope and expertise: Indicate any part of the manuscript or analyses outside your expertise.
    • Address any specific questions from the editor.
    • Alert the Editorial team of SQUMJ: about any concerns regarding publication or research misconduct, such as plagiarism or image manipulation.
    • Review your report before submission: considering its tone and professionalism, and avoiding personal remarks or antagonistic comments.

    The order of the report is flexible, but it should reflect the reviewer's thought process, justifying statements with facts and references. Not every aspect may apply to every paper due to discipline-specific norms. When in doubt, contact the Editor for guidance.

    SQUMJ maintains neutrality regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Reviewers should not request authors to make changes to these unless it critically affects the academic clarity of the manuscript.

    SQUMJ aims for swift editorial decisions and publication, valuing an efficient process for both authors and the research community. Reviewers are asked to respond promptly and inform the journal of any anticipated delays, allowing for timely author updates and alternative arrangements if needed.

    Back to Top

    Reviewer Responsibilities

    Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations with objectivity and professionalism, providing constructive, well-reasoned critiques to help authors improve their work. Feedback should be specific, supported by relevant arguments, and focused on the scientific validity and quality of the research, while personal criticism directed at authors is strictly discouraged. If a reviewer lacks the necessary expertise to assess a manuscript or cannot meet the review deadline, they must promptly notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review process.

    Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared, discussed, or used for personal gain. Reviewers must not retain copies of submitted manuscripts or disclose any details about the review process. In the event of identifying a conflict of interest—whether personal, professional, or financial with the authors, affiliated institutions, or funding sources—reviewers are required to disclose it to the editorial office and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.

    Reviewers should also be vigilant in identifying missing citations, improper attribution, or substantial overlap with other published works. If they suspect plagiarism, data manipulation, or any ethical violations, they must alert the editors immediately, ensuring that all sources contributing to the research are properly acknowledged.

    Back to Top

    Plagiarism Policy

    The journal maintains a strict anti-plagiarism policy and does not tolerate the use of others’ ideas, words, or work without proper acknowledgment. Submissions containing plagiarism in whole or in part, duplicate or redundant publication, or self-plagiarism (in the same or a different language) will be rejected. The Preprint archive is not considered a duplicate publication. All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism using professional plagiarism-checking software, and the similarity report is thoroughly examined by the Editorial Team. Manuscripts with an unacceptable similarity index due to plagiarism are immediately rejected.

    In cases where minor similarities are detected, authors are informed and asked to amend their manuscript accordingly. However, if major misconduct is found, the manuscript will be rejected in line with the guidelines set by the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). The corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript throughout the evaluation and publication process and has the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors.

    Back to Top

    Privacy Statement

    The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

    Back to Top

    Preprints Policy

    Authors are free to share their preprints at any time and on any platform. Upon acceptance for publication, we encourage authors to link their preprint to the formal publication using its Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Additionally, authors may update their preprints on platforms such as arXiv or RePEc to include the accepted manuscript.

    Back to Top

    Protection of Patients' Rights to Privacy

    Identifying information, such as names, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, sonograms, CT scans, or pedigrees unless it is crucial for scientific purposes and the patient (or their parent or guardian, if applicable) has provided informed consent for publication. Authors must remove patients' names from figures unless informed consent has been obtained.

    The journal adheres to the ICMJE guidelines:

    1. It is the responsibility of the authors, not the journal or publisher, to obtain the patient consent form prior to publication and to ensure it is properly archived. Consent forms should not be submitted with the cover letter or sent via email to the editorial or publisher offices.
    2. If the manuscript includes patient images that compromise anonymity or contain information that could reveal the patient's identity, a statement confirming that informed patient consent has been obtained should be included in the manuscript.

    Back to Top

    Publication Charge Policy

    The Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal (SQUMJ) is committed to advancing medical research and knowledge by providing free and open access to high-quality scholarly articles. SQUMJ operates under a no-fee policy, ensuring that neither authors nor readers incur any charges for submission, publication, or access to its content. This model is made possible through the full funding support of our publisher, Sultan Qaboos University (SQU), reflecting our dedication to fostering an inclusive academic environment and promoting the global dissemination of medical knowledge without financial barriers.

    Back to Top

    Benefits of a Free Journal to the Academic Community

    1. Enhanced Accessibility and Equity: By eliminating publication fees, SQUMJ ensures that researchers from diverse geographical and economic backgrounds can contribute to and benefit from cutting-edge medical research, leading to a more inclusive and representative scientific discourse.
    2. Promoting Knowledge Dissemination: Open access without fees accelerates the distribution of knowledge, enabling healthcare professionals, researchers, and the general public to access the latest medical research. This fosters innovation, collaboration, and the application of new insights to improve healthcare outcomes globally.

    For further reading on open access and free-to-publish journals, you may explore:

    • The Open Access Directory (OAD)
    • The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
    • The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) on Open Access

    Back to Top

    Publication Timing & Review Process

    SQUMJ publishes continuously throughout the year and accepts submissions at any time, providing flexibility for authors to submit their work throughout the year. The journal follows a continuous publishing model, where accepted articles will be published online within 3-4 weeks of acceptance. This enables quicker access to research findings and offers a more dynamic publication process.

    The journal strives for efficiency in its review process. On average, the time from manuscript submission to the first editorial decision is 60 days. The overall time from submission to acceptance typically takes about six months. The peer review process generally takes 1–3 months from submission, allowing for thorough evaluation and ensuring that only the highest standard of research is published.

    Back to Top

    Submission Process Description

    All manuscripts must be formatted according to our Guide for Authors prior to submission. All manuscripts should be submitted online at: Editorial Manager. Please register as a new user to submit your manuscript along with our standard covering letter. The manuscript must be submitted as a Word document.

    All manuscripts are scanned prima facie for suitability by our Subject Editors, which may take up to one week. If suitable, manuscripts are sent for international peer review. The review process may take up to 2–3 months depending on how quickly we receive reviews from the reviewers. The SQUMJ uses a double-blinded peer-review process in order to ensure a fair review process. This means that neither the reviewers nor the authors will know the identity of the other.

    As soon as we receive sufficient reviewer comments, authors are then informed of our publication decision and provide feedback if any revision is required. Revised manuscripts undergo rapid re-review by the same reviewers to ensure that all necessary changes have been made. Subsequently, if the reviewers approve the revision, the editorial team will edit the manuscript and send any editing queries to the authors to address. Once the authors submit the manuscript with the addressed editing queries, the manuscript will be accepted. A galley proof will then be produced within 5-10 business days for the authors to check. After amending author corrections (if any), the approved galley proof will be published online.

    Back to Top

    Studies in Humans and Animals

    If the research involves human subjects, the author must ensure that the study is conducted in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. The manuscript should align with the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and aim to include representative human populations (sex, age, and ethnicity) as outlined in those recommendations. The terms "sex" and "gender" should be used appropriately.

    Authors should include a statement in the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained for experimentation involving human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.

    All animal experiments must comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be conducted in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986, the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments, or the National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. Authors must clearly indicate in the manuscript that these guidelines have been followed. The sex of animals used in the research must be specified, and where relevant, the influence (or association) of sex on the study results should be noted.

    Back to Top

    Patients have the right to privacy, which should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or their parent or guardian) has given written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for publication requires that the identifiable patient is shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should inform patients whether any potentially identifiable material may be accessible online as well as in print after publication.

    Patient consent should be documented in writing and archived either with the journal, the authors, or both, in accordance with local regulations or laws. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt about the ability to maintain anonymity. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients does not sufficiently protect anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance, and editors should note, that these alterations do not distort the scientific meaning. When informed consent has been obtained, it must be indicated in the published article.

    Back to Top

    Special Issues

    At SQUMJ, we may occasionally publish special or thematic issues focused on specific areas of research to highlight emerging trends or important developments. Unlike some journals, we do not appoint guest editors to oversee these issues. Instead, the Editorial Board Members, under the guidance of the Editor-in-Chief, manage all aspects of the issue, ensuring consistency in quality and editorial standards. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final decision on all submissions, whether intended for regular issues or special/thematic ones, maintaining a rigorous and impartial review process.

    Back to Top

    Standards of Reporting

    Research should be communicated in a manner that ensures its verification and reproducibility. To support this, we encourage authors to provide detailed explanations of their research rationale, methodology, protocol, and analysis. This transparency helps facilitate the replication and validation of findings by other researchers.

    Back to Top

    Use of Third-Party Material

    Authors are required to obtain the necessary permissions to reuse third-party materials in their manuscripts. While short excerpts of text and some other materials may be used without formal permission for the purpose of criticism or review, any content for which the author does not hold copyright—and which does not fall under these informal guidelines—requires written permission from the copyright holder before submission. For guidance on requesting permission to reproduce copyrighted works, please contact us at .

    Back to Top

    Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing

    This policy pertains solely to the writing process, not the use of AI tools for data analysis or drawing insights during the research phase.

    When authors incorporate AI and AI-assisted technologies into their writing, it should be aimed at improving the clarity, readability, and language of the manuscript, rather than replacing critical authorial tasks such as generating scientific insights, drawing conclusions, or providing clinical recommendations. The application of AI tools must always be under human supervision, and the resulting work should undergo thorough review and editing. While AI can generate content that appears authoritative, it may also produce inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information. Ultimately, the authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the content.

    Authors are required to disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts. A statement of this disclosure will be included in the final published work, promoting transparency and ensuring compliance with the terms of use for the relevant tools.

    Authors should not attribute authorship to AI or list AI as a co-author. Authorship involves specific responsibilities and tasks that only humans can fulfill. Each author is accountable for addressing any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of the work, approving the final version, and consenting to its submission. Authors must also ensure the originality of the work, confirm that all listed authors meet the criteria for authorship, and ensure that the work does not infringe upon third-party rights.

    Back to Top