Allegations of misconduct

BSMMU Journal has established a comprehensive policy to handle allegations of misconduct, guided by the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Authors are expected to carefully review the journal's author instructions and ethical guidelines and adhere to them prior to submitting their work. While authors have the option to propose potential reviewers for the peer-review process, we thoroughly assess the qualifications and potential conflicts of interest of all reviewers before inviting them to participate.

Reports of research misconduct may pertain to either a published article or a manuscript undergoing peer review. The process for addressing allegations of author misconduct is conducted with utmost sensitivity, discretion, and in a confidential manner, following these steps:

  1. The journal's editorial office receives a complaint regarding suspected research misconduct in an article submitted to or published in the journal. For reporting misconduct related to an article published in our journal, please provide detailed information via this link:
  2. The complainant should clearly specify the nature and details of the misconduct. 
  3. An investigation will be initiated by the editorial office, during which the journal's editor and the corresponding author(s) of the implicated article will be in communication.
  4. The corresponding author(s) will be requested to furnish an explanation supported by factual statements and any available evidence.
  5. If the author(s) acknowledge the misconduct complaint, the editorial office will take appropriate actions based on the circumstances:
    (a) If the article has already been published, corrective measures such as an erratum or retraction may be necessary. However, the wording of the description may still be subject to discussion.
    (b) If the misconduct is identified during the review process, the review may continue with the author(s) making necessary revisions.
  6. In cases of nonresponse within the stipulated timeframe or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected. Prior to reaching a decision, input may be sought from relevant experts or authorities as deemed necessary.
  7. The complainant will be informed of the resolution once the matter is resolved.
  8. The complaint case will be considered officially closed.