Publication Policies
Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS)
About the Journal
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal committed to advancing high-quality research across the broad spectrum of medical, clinical, and health sciences. Established under the academic vision of Ghurki Trust Teaching Hospital, the journal serves as a rigorous platform for disseminating scientific knowledge, promoting evidence-based practice, and fostering academic dialogue among clinicians, researchers, educators, policymakers, and multidisciplinary health professionals.
GJMHS upholds the principles of scientific rigor, editorial integrity, ethical transparency, and academic inclusivity, aligning its operations with globally recognized publication standards — including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) best practices.
As a scholarly outlet dedicated to the progression of scientific discovery, the journal prioritizes methodologically sound research, encourages interdisciplinary collaboration, and champions innovation in clinical practice, health policy, patient care, and public health systems. All published articles undergo a stringent double-blind peer-review process, ensuring unbiased evaluation, scientific accuracy, and intellectual depth.
GJMHS is fully open-access under a Creative Commons license, ensuring that all published work is freely accessible, discoverable, and reusable for educational, clinical, and research purposes. The journal emphasizes global visibility, integration into reputable indexing platforms, and long-term digital preservation through secure archiving systems. Each article is also assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to ensure permanent accessibility, traceability, and international citation recognition.
As part of its mission, the journal seeks to contribute meaningfully to global health by promoting research that addresses emerging health challenges, strengthens clinical practices, and enhances healthcare delivery within both local and global contexts.
Aims and Scope
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences aims to:
- Promote high-impact scientific research across medicine, health sciences, and interdisciplinary fields.
- Encourage evidence-based clinical decision-making by disseminating robust research that informs practice, policy, and healthcare innovation.
- Support emerging and established researchers by providing a transparent, ethical, and academically rigorous publishing environment.
- Enhance global research visibility through open-access dissemination, DOIs, indexing partnerships, and long-term archiving.
- Advance the culture of scientific inquiry by upholding integrity, reproducibility, and adherence to international publication standards.
Scope of the Journal
GJMHS publishes a broad range of scholarly contributions, including:
- Original Research Articles
- Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- Narrative Reviews
- Case Reports and Case Series (with strict ethical compliance)
- Short Communications
- Clinical Practice Updates
- Policy and Public Health Analyses
- Methodological Papers
- Educational and Training Research
- Health Systems and Community Health Studies
Disciplines Covered
The journal welcomes submissions from (but not limited to):
- Clinical Medicine
- Surgery and Surgical Specialties
- Rehabilitation Sciences
- Orthopedics and Neuromuscular Sciences
- Nursing and Midwifery
- Allied Health Sciences
- Physiotherapy and Sports Medicine
- Diagnostic and Imaging Sciences
- Public Health, Community Medicine, and Epidemiology
- Medical Education and Simulation
- Pharmacology and Therapeutics
- Health Policy, Health Systems, and Management
- Biomedical Sciences
By supporting a multidisciplinary approach, GJMHS fosters collaboration between clinicians, researchers, academicians, scientists, and public health professionals.
Frequency of the Journal
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) follows a biannual publication frequency, designed to ensure academic rigor, high editorial standards, and consistent dissemination of quality research.
The journal commenced publication on 1 January 2025. From its inception, GJMHS has adopted a structured biannual model to support thorough peer review, editorial quality control, and reliable indexing practices.
Biannual Publication Model
GJMHS publishes two issues per year, covering fixed six-month periods:
- First Issue (January–June)
- Second Issue (July–December)
This frequency allows the journal to:
- Maintain high-quality peer review standards
- Ensure careful editorial and ethical screening
- Provide sufficient time for revisions and author communication
- Deliver professionally copyedited and indexed publications
Publication History and Issue Structure
Volume 1 (2025)
As the inaugural year of publication, 2025 constitutes Volume 1 of GJMHS:
- Volume 1, Issue 1 (January–June 2025)
Published at the end of June 2025, featuring manuscripts submitted, reviewed, and accepted during the first half of the year. - Volume 1, Issue 2 (July–December 2025)
Published at the end of December 2025, comprising manuscripts processed during the second half of the year.
Biannual Publication Timeline
Each biannual cycle follows a clearly defined and monitored workflow:
January–June Issue
- Manuscript submission and review: January–May
- Final acceptance and production: June
- Issue publication: End of June
July–December Issue
- Manuscript submission and review: July–November
- Final acceptance and production: December
- Issue publication: End of December
Each cycle ensures:
- Adequate time for rigorous peer review
- Ethical and editorial compliance checks
- Professional copyediting and layout
- DOI assignment and metadata indexing
- Timely online availability of published articles
Editorial Workflow and Timeliness
The publication schedule of GJMHS is supported by:
- Continuous editorial screening within defined timelines
- Standardized peer review periods, typically 3–4 weeks per review cycle
- Structured revision timelines based on the level of revision required
- Post-acceptance processing, including proofreading, typesetting, metadata preparation, and DOI registration
Commitment to Transparency and Timely Dissemination
GJMHS is committed to:
- Publishing each issue according to the announced schedule
- Avoiding backlog accumulation
- Transparently communicating any unavoidable delays
- Making all accepted articles available online promptly upon completion of production
This biannual publication model ensures steady, reliable access to scientifically sound research while maintaining alignment with international scholarly publishing standards
-
Peer Review Policy and Process
1. Purpose of the Policy
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) operates a structured, independent and confidential peer-review system to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and on the basis of their scientific quality.
The peer-review process is intended to assess:
- Scientific validity and methodological quality
- Originality and relevance
- Ethical compliance
- Accuracy and completeness of reporting
- Appropriateness of statistical analysis
- Reliability of results and conclusions
- Contribution to medical and health sciences
- Compliance with the journal’s aims, scope and author guidelines
Editorial and peer-review decisions are based solely on academic merit. An author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, professional status, personal beliefs or ability to pay publication charges does not influence the decision.
2. Peer-Review Model
GJMHS follows a double-blind peer-review model.
Under this model:
- Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities.
- Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
- The manuscript submitted for review must not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgements or other identifying information.
- Reviewer identities are kept confidential and are not disclosed to authors or third parties, except where disclosure is required by law or formally authorized by the reviewer and journal.
The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce conscious and unconscious bias and support an impartial assessment of the manuscript.
The editorial office takes reasonable steps to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where authors reveal their identity through self-citation, trial registration information, preprints or other publicly available material.
3. Scope of Peer Review
The following manuscript types are normally subject to external peer review:
- Original research articles
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Narrative and scoping reviews
- Short communications
- Case reports and case series
- Clinical studies
- Public health and epidemiological studies
- Medical education research
- Other scholarly submissions considered suitable by the Editor
Editorials, invited commentaries, letters, corrections, obituaries and journal announcements may be assessed internally or externally at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion.
All externally submitted research manuscripts are subject to editorial screening before peer review.
4. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently of:
- The publisher
- Journal management
- Sponsors and advertisers
- Authors’ institutional positions
- Publication-fee payments
- Personal or professional relationships
- Commercial or political interests
The publisher does not interfere with reviewer selection, reviewer recommendations or final editorial decisions.
The final responsibility for accepting or rejecting a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor who has no conflict of interest in the manuscript.
5. Stages of the Peer-Review Process
Stage 1: Submission Through OJS
Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS).
At submission, authors are required to provide:
- An anonymized manuscript
- A separate title page
- Complete author metadata
- Ethical approval information, where applicable
- Informed-consent statements, where applicable
- Conflict-of-interest declaration
- Funding statement
- Author contribution statement
- Required reporting checklist
- Supplementary documents and forms
Submissions through personal email or unofficial communication channels are not accepted.
Stage 2: Administrative Completeness Check
The editorial office checks whether:
- All required files have been submitted.
- The manuscript is properly anonymized.
- Author information and metadata are complete.
- Tables, figures and references are appropriately presented.
- Required declarations and ethical documents are available.
- The manuscript generally follows the journal’s formatting requirements.
Incomplete submissions may be returned to the corresponding author for technical correction before editorial assessment.
Stage 3: Initial Editorial Screening
The Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor or designated editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript:
- Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
- Has adequate scientific and academic merit
- Presents an appropriate research question
- Uses a generally suitable study design
- Complies with basic ethical and reporting requirements
- Is sufficiently clear and complete for peer review
- Follows the journal’s authorship and publication policies
- Contains material suitable for consideration by GJMHS
The manuscript may receive one of the following outcomes at this stage:
- Proceed to peer review
- Return for technical correction
- Return for preliminary revision
- Desk rejection
A manuscript may be desk-rejected when it:
- Falls outside the journal’s scope
- Does not meet minimum scientific standards
- Contains serious methodological deficiencies
- Lacks required ethical approval
- Shows evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication
- Is substantially incomplete
- Does not comply with the journal’s policies
- Is unsuitable for external peer review
The journal aims to communicate an initial screening decision within 5–7 working days, although additional time may be required for complex ethical or technical assessment.
Stage 4: Similarity and Research-Integrity Screening
Manuscripts considered suitable for further assessment are screened using similarity-detection software.
The similarity report is evaluated by the editorial team. Decisions are not made solely on the basis of the numerical similarity percentage. The editor considers:
- The source of matched text
- The amount and location of overlap
- Proper quotation and citation
- Methodological terminology
- Possible plagiarism
- Self-plagiarism or text recycling
- Duplicate or redundant publication
Where concerns arise, the manuscript may be:
- Returned to the authors for clarification or correction
- Referred for further editorial assessment
- Rejected
- Investigated under the journal’s publication-ethics procedures
Similarity screening may be repeated after revision and before final publication.
Stage 5: Assignment to a Handling Editor
A manuscript that passes initial screening is assigned to an Associate Editor, Subject Editor or other qualified Handling Editor.
The editor is selected according to:
- Subject expertise
- Academic qualifications
- Editorial experience
- Knowledge of the research methodology
- Absence of financial, professional, institutional or personal conflicts of interest
The Handling Editor manages the review process, selects reviewers, evaluates reviewer reports and makes a recommendation or decision within the limits of delegated authority.
An editor with a conflict of interest must decline responsibility for the manuscript. The submission will then be reassigned to another qualified editor.
Stage 6: Selection of Peer Reviewers
Each research manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of:
- Relevant subject knowledge
- Appropriate academic or professional qualifications
- Research and publication experience
- Experience with the study design or methodology
- Ability to provide a timely and constructive review
- Absence of conflicts of interest
- Previous reviewing performance, where known
Reviewers should not ordinarily be selected when they:
- Work in the same department or institution as an author
- Have a recent close collaboration with an author
- Have a personal, professional or financial relationship that may influence judgment
- Have a competitive interest in the research
- Are directly involved in the work being evaluated
- Are unable to provide an independent assessment
The journal may consider reviewer suggestions provided by authors but is not required to invite suggested reviewers.
Authors may request the exclusion of particular reviewers by providing a valid reason. The final selection remains the responsibility of the editor.
Stage 7: Reviewer Invitation and Acceptance
Selected reviewers receive an invitation containing sufficient information to determine whether they:
- Have the relevant expertise
- Can complete the review within the required period
- Have any conflict of interest
- Can maintain confidentiality
Before accepting the review, reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest.
A reviewer who lacks appropriate expertise, cannot meet the deadline or has a conflict of interest must decline the invitation promptly.
Stage 8: Double-Blind External Peer Review
Reviewers assess the anonymized manuscript independently.
The review should address:
Scientific and methodological quality
- Clarity of the research question and objectives
- Appropriateness of the study design
- Adequacy of sample size and sampling methods
- Validity of data-collection procedures
- Appropriateness of statistical analysis
- Accuracy and completeness of results
- Consistency between results and conclusions
- Recognition of limitations
- Reproducibility of the methods
Originality and relevance
- Original contribution to knowledge
- Relevance to the journal’s scope
- Clinical, academic or public-health importance
- Appropriate engagement with existing literature
Ethical compliance
- Ethical-review approval
- Informed consent
- Protection of participant confidentiality
- Appropriate trial registration, where applicable
- Ethical handling of human, animal or sensitive data
- Disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest
Reporting quality
- Appropriate title and abstract
- Logical structure
- Clear methods and results
- Adequate tables and figures
- Appropriate discussion and conclusions
- Accurate and relevant references
- Compliance with applicable reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA or CARE
Presentation
- Clarity and readability
- Logical organization
- Appropriate scientific language
- Absence of unsupported or exaggerated claims
Reviewers should distinguish between essential scientific revisions and optional suggestions.
6. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
- Maintain confidentiality throughout and after the review
- Evaluate the manuscript objectively
- Provide clear, constructive and evidence-based comments
- Identify significant methodological, statistical or ethical concerns
- Avoid personal or offensive remarks
- Declare all potential conflicts of interest
- Complete the review within the agreed timeframe
- Inform the editor if additional expertise is required
- Identify relevant uncited literature where appropriate
- Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication or other misconduct
- Avoid using unpublished information for personal benefit
Reviewers must not:
- Share the manuscript with unauthorized persons
- Contact authors directly
- Disclose manuscript content
- Use manuscript ideas or data for their own research
- Delay a review for personal or competitive advantage
- Request unnecessary citation of their own publications
- Attempt to influence authors for personal benefit
- Discriminate on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, institution, seniority, religion, disability or personal beliefs
A reviewer wishing to consult a colleague must obtain prior permission from the editor. Any person who contributes to the review must be identified to the journal.
7. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, figures, tables, data or supplementary material to publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence tools.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality and integrity of their reports.
Any permitted use of an artificial-intelligence tool must comply with the journal’s confidentiality and data-protection requirements and should be disclosed to the editor where relevant.
Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer’s independent expert judgment.
8. Confidentiality of the Review Process
Submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.
Editors and reviewers must not:
- Disclose manuscript content
- Share unpublished findings
- Discuss the manuscript outside the authorized editorial process
- Use information obtained through peer review for personal advantage
- Retain manuscript files unnecessarily after completing the review
Editorial files, review reports and correspondence are accessible only to authorized journal personnel.
Reviewer reports may be shared with other reviewers involved in the same manuscript where this is necessary for editorial assessment, but reviewer identities remain confidential.
9. Conflict-of-Interest Management
Editors and reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their assessment.
Potential conflicts include:
- Recent collaboration with an author
- Employment at the same institution
- Supervisory or student relationships
- Financial interests
- Personal relationships
- Academic rivalry
- Direct competition
- Strong intellectual or ideological disagreement
- Involvement in the submitted research
Where a significant conflict exists:
- The reviewer must decline the review.
- The editor must recuse themselves.
- The manuscript must be reassigned.
Failure to disclose a relevant conflict may result in removal from the reviewer or editorial database and further action under the journal’s ethics policy.
10. Peer-Review Timeline
Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within 3–4 weeks.
A reasonable extension may be granted when:
- The reviewer requests additional time before the deadline
- The manuscript is technically complex
- Specialist statistical or methodological assessment is required
Reviewers who cannot complete the review should inform the journal promptly.
The journal may invite a replacement reviewer when:
- An invitation is declined
- A reviewer does not respond
- The review is substantially delayed
- The submitted report is inadequate
- A conflict of interest becomes apparent
The journal aims to process manuscripts efficiently but cannot guarantee a fixed decision or publication date.
11. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend:
Recommendation Meaning Accept The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive revision. Minor revision Limited corrections, clarifications or improvements are required. Major revision Substantial changes to methods, analysis, reporting or interpretation are required. Resubmit for review The manuscript requires extensive revision and another full review cycle. Reject The manuscript has major deficiencies or is unsuitable for publication. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is not required to follow a recommendation when it is unsupported, inconsistent with journal policy or contradicted by the available evidence.
12. Editorial Decision
The Handling Editor evaluates:
- Reviewer reports
- Scientific quality of the manuscript
- Ethical compliance
- Relevance to the journal
- Consistency and strength of reviewer comments
- Authors’ responses to previous revisions
- Compliance with journal policies
The editorial decision may be:
- Accept
- Minor revision
- Major revision
- Resubmit for peer review
- Reject
The corresponding author receives the decision letter and anonymized reviewer comments through OJS.
The Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor has final responsibility for the decision.
An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.
13. Conflicting or Inadequate Reviewer Reports
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the Handling Editor may:
- Evaluate the reports and reach an independent decision
- Request clarification from one or both reviewers
- Invite an additional reviewer
- Seek specialist statistical or methodological assessment
- Refer the manuscript to another editor
A third reviewer is not appointed automatically in every case. The editor determines whether an additional opinion is necessary.
A reviewer report may be disregarded where it:
- Contains inappropriate or discriminatory comments
- Lacks meaningful scientific assessment
- Shows a conflict of interest
- Breaches confidentiality
- Makes unsupported recommendations
- Includes coercive citation requests
- Fails to address the manuscript’s content adequately
14. Revision by Authors
Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:
- A clean revised manuscript
- A tracked-changes or highlighted version, where requested
- A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers
- Revised tables, figures or supplementary files
- Updated declarations or ethical documents, where applicable
The response letter should:
- Reproduce each reviewer comment.
- State whether the comment was addressed.
- Explain the change made.
- Identify the relevant page, paragraph or line.
- Provide an academic justification where a suggested change was not made.
Indicative revision periods are:
- Minor revision: normally 7–14 days
- Major revision: normally 21–45 days
Authors requiring additional time should request an extension before the deadline.
Failure to submit a satisfactory revision may result in rejection or closure of the submission.
15. Re-Review of Revised Manuscripts
Revised manuscripts may be assessed by:
- The Handling Editor
- One or both original reviewers
- An additional reviewer
- A statistical or methodological reviewer
Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor without further external review.
Major revisions will normally be returned to the original reviewers when further expert assessment is required.
More than one round of revision may be requested.
16. Final Acceptance
A manuscript may be accepted when the responsible editor is satisfied that:
- The scientific concerns have been adequately addressed.
- The methodology and reporting are acceptable.
- Ethical requirements have been fulfilled.
- The authors have responded appropriately to reviewer comments.
- The conclusions are supported by the results.
- Required declarations and documentation are complete.
- The manuscript complies with journal policies.
A formal acceptance letter is issued through the journal’s official system.
Publication charges, where applicable, are communicated only after formal acceptance and do not influence the editorial decision.
17. Post-Acceptance Processing
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process, which may include:
- Copyediting
- Language and technical correction
- Reference verification
- Formatting
- Figure and table checking
- Typesetting
- DOI and metadata preparation
- Author proofreading
- Final publication approval
The corresponding author receives the proof for checking and should normally return corrections within 48–72 hours.
Only minor corrections are normally permitted at the proof stage. Substantive changes to authorship, data, results or conclusions require editorial approval and adequate justification.
The article is published after completion of all editorial, ethical, administrative and production requirements.
18. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that:
- A factual or methodological error affected the decision.
- Reviewer comments were seriously misunderstood.
- A relevant conflict of interest was not recognized.
- The review process was procedurally unfair.
An appeal must:
- Be submitted by the corresponding author
- Identify the manuscript number and title
- Explain the grounds for appeal clearly
- Address the scientific reasons for reconsideration
- Avoid personal criticism of editors or reviewers
An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the decision.
The appeal will be considered by the Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor who was not substantially involved in the original decision. The journal’s decision following appeal is final.
19. Complaints About Peer Review
Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, confidentiality, bias, delays, conflicts of interest or editorial handling should be submitted in writing to the journal.
The complaint should include:
- Manuscript identification number
- Description of the concern
- Relevant correspondence or evidence
- Desired resolution
Complaints are handled confidentially and, where appropriate, independently of the person whose conduct is being questioned.
20. Suspected Misconduct During Peer Review
Where editors or reviewers identify possible:
- Plagiarism
- Fabrication or falsification
- Image manipulation
- Duplicate publication
- Undisclosed conflict of interest
- Unethical research
- Authorship manipulation
- Peer-review manipulation
- Citation manipulation
the journal may suspend the review process and request clarification or evidence from the authors.
Depending on the seriousness of the concern, the journal may:
- Reject the manuscript
- Contact the authors’ institution
- Contact an ethics committee or relevant authority
- Correct or retract a published article
- Restrict future submissions
- Remove an editor or reviewer from the journal database
Allegations are assessed fairly, confidentially and on the basis of available evidence.
21. Peer-Review Manipulation
GJMHS does not tolerate attempts to manipulate the peer-review process.
Prohibited practices include:
- Providing false reviewer identities
- Providing fabricated reviewer email addresses
- Impersonating a reviewer
- Attempting to influence reviewer selection improperly
- Creating fraudulent reviewer accounts
- Interfering with editorial communications
- Submitting fabricated review reports
Where manipulation is suspected, the manuscript may be rejected and further action may be taken under the journal’s publication-ethics policy.
22. Review of Manuscripts Submitted by Editors
Manuscripts submitted by editorial-board members, editors or persons closely associated with the journal are not given preferential treatment.
Such manuscripts are:
- Assigned to an independent editor
- Processed without involvement of the submitting editor
- Subject to the same screening and peer-review requirements
- Evaluated on scientific merit
- Managed with appropriate conflict-of-interest safeguards
The submitting editor will not have access to confidential reviewer information or participate in the decision.
23. Reviewer Recognition and Records
GJMHS maintains confidential records of:
- Reviewer invitations
- Acceptance or decline of invitations
- Review reports
- Review completion dates
- Declared conflicts of interest
- Editorial decisions
- Reviewer performance and timeliness
Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged periodically without linking individual reviewers to particular manuscripts unless the reviewer has provided permission.
Confidential review records are retained according to the journal’s record-management policy.
24. Policy Review and Amendment
This Peer Review Policy is reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with:
- The journal’s editorial practices
- Applicable ethical requirements
- Developments in scholarly publishing
- Relevant national and international guidance
Any amendment will be approved by the journal’s authorized editorial management and published on the journal website with the effective date.
Important Corrections Before Uploading This Policy
Do not publish claims unless the journal can provide evidence that they are operational:
Existing wording Recommended action “Professional language editing” Use “copyediting and language correction” unless a professional editing service is formally available. “Published as Online First immediately” Retain only when GJMHS actually has an Online First system. “Monthly or biannual issue” Choose one confirmed publication frequency. Do not mention both. “Archived with LOCKSS and CLOCKSS” Retain only if the journal is formally enrolled in these services. Otherwise state “archived through the journal’s approved digital-preservation arrangements.” “Ethics Editor conducts review” Retain only if an officially designated Ethics Editor is listed on the editorial board. “Minimum reviewer qualification” Apply the criterion consistently and maintain evidence in reviewer records. “Desk rejection within 5–7 days” Publish it as an aim rather than a guarantee unless records demonstrate consistent compliance.
Originality and Plagiarism Policy
GJMHS maintains zero tolerance toward plagiarism, duplication, falsification, fabricated data, image manipulation, or unethical authorship practices. The journal complies with COPE, ICMJE, and HEC Pakistan plagiarism policies.
- Plagiarism Screening
Every manuscript undergoes:
- Turnitin similarity check
- Image forensics (if applicable)
- Citation accuracy check
Similarity Thresholds
- ≤20% similarity: acceptable with proper citations
- >20% similarity: returned for correction
- >30% similarity or detected patchwork plagiarism: desk rejection
- Forms of Plagiarism
- Direct copying
- Self-plagiarism
- Mosaic/patchwork plagiarism
- Data plagiarism
- Image duplication
- Improper paraphrasing
- Failure to cite original sources
- Consequences of Plagiarism
Depending on severity:
- Manuscript rejection
- Blacklisting authors
- Retraction of published article
- Notification to institutions
- Ban on future submissions
Subscription Details
GJMHS is a fully open-access journal, promoting free and unrestricted access to scientific knowledge.
Key Principles:
- No subscription fee
- No access fee
- No paywalls
- No institutional login required
- Global access to full text
Accessibility:
All articles are available:
- On the journal website
- In PDF, HTML, and XML formats
- Through open-access repositories
- Through indexing platforms
Benefits for Readers:
- Worldwide availability
- Access to high-quality research
- No financial barriers
- Use permitted under CC BY licensing
- JOURNAL OPERATIONS
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) operates under a governance and editorial structure built upon the core principles of scientific rigor, transparency, integrity, editorial independence, and ethical accountability. The journal’s operational framework ensures smooth coordination of editorial workflows, peer-review processes, publication timelines, indexing, archiving, digital content management, and compliance with global scholarly standards.
GJMHS is committed to maintaining an operational ecosystem that supports high-quality publishing, fosters international collaboration, adheres to ethical norms, and provides authors, reviewers, editors, and readers with a professional and reliable research dissemination platform.
1.1 Governance Structure
The journal operates under the oversight of:
- Editorial Board
Consisting of:
- Editor-in-Chief
- Associate Editors
- Section Editors
- Ethics Editor
- Publishing Editor
- Statistical/Methodological Editor
- Copyediting & Production Team
Each member is selected based on academic excellence, research contribution, editorial experience, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
- Advisory Board
A distinguished panel of national and international experts guiding:
- Strategic direction
- Editorial quality enhancement
- Scientific rigor
- Policy development
- Publisher Oversight
The Ghurki Trust Teaching Hospital (GTTH) serves as the journal’s publisher, ensuring long-term support, infrastructure, and compliance with legal and professional standards.
1.2 Editorial Independence
The journal strictly adheres to WAME (World Association of Medical Editors) and COPE recommendations for editorial independence. Editorial decisions are based solely on:
- Scientific merit
- Research quality
- Ethical integrity
- Relevance to journal scope
No external party—including sponsors, institutional authorities, advertisers, or funding agencies—may influence editorial decisions.
1.3 Manuscript Life Cycle Management
GJMHS maintains a transparent and accountable workflow from submission to publication:
- Submission through OJS
- Pre-editorial screening (quality, scope, ethics, plagiarism)
- Handling Editor assignment
- Double-blind peer review
- Editorial decision based on reviews
- Revision and quality improvement
- Technical editing, formatting, and metadata tagging
- DOI assignment and digital archiving
- Publication in scheduled issue
- Indexing and repository submission
Each step is time-tracked to maintain journal efficiency and transparency in publishing.
1.4 Digital Infrastructure
The journal operates through:
- OJS (Open Journal Systems) for submissions, peer review, decision tracking
- CrossRef DOI allocation
- Turnitin for plagiarism checks
- LOCKSS and CLOCKSS for long-term archiving
- OpenAlex, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Semantic Scholar, and other indexing partners
This ensures:
- Content discoverability
- Citation traceability
- Research preservation
- Secure and transparent academic communication
1.5 Transparency of Operations
To meet global ethical publishing standards, GJMHS publicly shares its policies on:
- Peer review
- Editorial roles
- Open access
- Editorial ethics
- Data sharing
- Copyright and licensing
- Conflicts of interest
- Retractions/corrections
- Author responsibilities
This ensures authors and readers understand the journal’s scholarly expectations and operational rigor.
1.6 Commitment to Quality Improvement
The journal conducts periodic evaluations of:
- Reviewer performance
- Editor workload
- Plagiarism trends
- Publication timelines
- Citation metrics
- International visibility
This self-audit culture promotes continuous quality enhancement and strengthens scientific integrity.
- ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical Consent & Guidelines, Malpractice Statement
GJMHS is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in medical and health sciences publishing. Our ethics policies strictly follow:
- COPE Core Practices
- ICMJE Recommendations (2024)
- WAME Editorial Policies
- CARE, CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE reporting guidelines
- Declaration of Helsinki for human research
- Universal bioethics principles
These frameworks guide all aspects of publication, from authorship to peer review, data integrity, and editorial decision-making.
2.1 Ethical Requirements for Authors
Authors must ensure:
- Originality & Integrity
- Manuscripts must be original, unpublished, and not under review elsewhere.
- All data must be truthful, verifiable, and free from fabrication or falsification.
- Ethical Approval for Human Research
All studies involving human participants must include:
- IRB/ERB approval number and institution name
- Confirmation of compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki
- Approval for vulnerable populations (children, pregnant women, disabled individuals, etc.)
- Informed Consent
- Written informed consent for identifiable data, images, or case details
- Guardian consent for minors or cognitively impaired individuals
- Explicit documentation in the manuscript’s ethics statement
- Clinical Trials
Clinical trials must include:
- Trial registration number
- Compliance with ICMJE trial registration requirements
2.2 Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
Editors must uphold:
Editorial Impartiality
Decisions based solely on scientific quality and ethical compliance — not:
- Nationality
- Religious affiliation
- Institutional background
- Author seniority
- Political views
- Funding sources
Confidentiality
Editors must:
- Protect manuscript confidentiality
- Not use unpublished data for personal gain
- Declare conflicts of interest
Handling Misconduct
Editors must initiate investigations when evidence suggests:
- Fabricated data
- Image manipulation
- Plagiarism
- Duplicate publication
- Unethical research on humans
2.3 Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must ensure:
Confidentiality
- Manuscripts cannot be shared, copied, or used for personal research
- All content must be deleted after the review
Objectivity
Reviews should be:
- Professional
- Constructive
- Free from hostility, bias, or inappropriate personal comments
Integrity
Reviewers must disclose:
- Conflicts of interest
- Inability to review
- Any ethical concerns or data inconsistencies
2.4 Malpractice Statement
Research misconduct or unethical publication behavior is taken extremely seriously. The journal’s approach is aligned with COPE’s misconduct procedures.
Types of Misconduct
- Fabrication of data
- Falsification or manipulation of figures
- Plagiarism or self-plagiarism
- Redundant or duplicate publication
- Unethical experiments
- Breach of participant confidentiality
- Unapproved use of images
- Improper authorship practices
Procedures for Handling Misconduct
- Initial internal investigation
- Request for explanation from authors
- Consultation with COPE flowcharts
- Decision: correction, retraction, expression of concern, or rejection
- Communication with author institution (if required)
- Long-term submission ban (in severe cases)
Outcomes
Misconduct may result in:
- Immediate manuscript rejection
- Retraction from published issues
- Notification to author’s institution
- Permanent prohibition from future submissions
- PRIVACY STATEMENT
GJMHS respects the privacy, confidentiality, and personal data rights of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. The journal complies with:
- International Data Protection and Privacy Standards
- GDPR principles (where applicable)
- Best practices recommended by COPE & WAME
The privacy policy ensures that all personal data is handled responsibly, securely, and only for scholarly purposes.
3.1 Data We Collect
From authors:
- Name, designation, institution
- Email addresses and phone numbers
- ORCID ID
- Submission files and metadata
- Conflict-of-interest statements
From reviewers:
- Contact information
- Areas of expertise
- Review history
From readers:
- Website analytics (non-identifiable)
3.2 Purpose of Data Collection
Personal data is used strictly for:
- Manuscript submission processing
- Assigning reviewers
- Editorial communication
- Publishing and indexing metadata
- Maintaining academic integrity
- Enhancing journal functionality
No personal data is shared with third parties except those necessary for legitimate scholarly operations (e.g., CrossRef for DOI registration).
3.3 Data Protection Measures
The journal ensures:
- Secure servers and encrypted systems
- Password-protected editorial accounts
- Restricted access (editors only)
- No unauthorized third-party sharing
- Periodic system audits
3.4 Rights of Authors and Reviewers
Individuals may request:
- Access to personal data
- Correction of inaccurate information
- Deletion of data (post-publication restrictions apply)
- Withdrawal of consent (where possible)
Requests are processed within 10–15 working days.
3.5 Privacy in Peer Review
- Reviewer identities remain confidential
- Author names are hidden from reviewers
- Manuscripts are securely transmitted and stored
3.6 Changes to Privacy Policy
The journal may update its privacy policy periodically. Any changes will be communicated through the journal website.
- COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
GJMHS follows a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) open-access model to promote the unrestricted distribution of scientific knowledge.
4.1 Copyright Ownership
- Authors retain full copyright of their manuscripts.
- The journal receives a non-exclusive license to publish, archive, distribute, and index the work.
- Authors may share, archive, or reuse their work freely, provided proper citation is given.
4.2 Licensing Terms (CC BY 4.0)
This license permits:
- Sharing (copying and redistributing the material)
- Adapting (remixing, transforming, building upon the material)
- Commercial and non-commercial use
As long as proper attribution is provided.
Attribution Requirements
Users must:
- Cite the article
- Credit the authors
- Provide a link to the license
- Indicate if changes were made
4.3 Author Warranties
Authors submitting manuscripts must guarantee:
- Originality of content
- No infringement of third-party rights
- Permission obtained for copyrighted images/data
- Compliance with ethical guidelines
- No libelous or unlawful statements
4.4 Post-Publication Rights
Authors may:
- Upload final published PDF to institutional repositories
- Share on ResearchGate, Academia.edu, personal websites
- Deposit in any archive without embargo
4.5 Copyright Violations
Violations include:
- Unauthorized reproduction without attribution
- Manipulation of published content
- Misuse of figures, tables, or images
The journal may pursue:
- Retraction
- Legal notice
- Removal from indexing repositories
- Formal reporting to institutions
4.6 Publisher Rights
The publisher may:
- Maintain permanent digital archives
- Reproduce the article for indexing
- Use article metadata for indexing and abstracting services
- Promote the article on website and social channels
- DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY
1.1 Introduction
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) is firmly committed to maintaining the highest levels of transparency, research integrity, and ethical publication practices. Disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) is essential for sustaining trust in scholarly communication. To ensure fairness, objectivity, and scientific rigor, GJMHS follows the ICMJE Recommendations (2024) and COPE Core Practices on financial and non-financial COIs.
A conflict of interest exists whenever the personal, professional, or financial interests of any participant in the publication process (authors, reviewers, editors, contributors, or advisory members) could potentially influence, or appear to influence, their objectivity, judgment, or actions.
This policy outlines the journal’s expectations, disclosure procedures, and mechanisms to prevent, identify, and manage conflicts during all stages of manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, and publication.
1.2 Principles of Transparency
GJMHS operates on three foundational principles regarding COI:
- Transparency
All stakeholders must openly declare any interest that may affect research, review, or editorial actions.
- Accountability
Authors, reviewers, and editors must take personal responsibility for disclosing conflicts.
- Integrity
Undisclosed conflicts—whether intentional or unintentional—undermine scientific credibility and may lead to sanctions, including manuscript rejection, corrections, or retraction.
1.3 Types of Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts may be financial, professional, or personal. GJMHS requires disclosure of all relevant interests from the preceding three years.
- Financial Conflicts of Interest
Include, but are not limited to:
- Direct funding or grants related to the submitted work
- Consultancy fees
- Paid lectures or honoraria
- Stock ownership or equity interest
- Patents (granted or pending)
- Sponsored travel or accommodations
- Employment or financial association with relevant organizations
- Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest
Include:
- Personal relationships or disputes
- Academic competition
- Institutional affiliations
- Intellectual or philosophical beliefs
- Membership in advocacy groups
- Editorial board roles in overlapping journals
- Institutional Conflicts
When the author’s institution has a financial or reputational stake in the research.
1.4 Disclosure Requirements for Authors
Authors must:
- Declare all potential conflicts during manuscript submission via the COI section of the online submission system.
- Include a COI statement within the manuscript (before references).
- Provide transparency regarding funding sources, including the role of sponsors in:
- Study design
- Data collection
- Analysis
- Manuscript preparation
- Decision to publish
- State explicitly when no conflict exists using the phrase:
“The authors declare no conflict of interest.”
Failure to disclose a conflict—whether intentional or accidental—may result in:
- Rejection of manuscript
- Publication of correction notice
- Retraction
- Notification to institutional authorities
1.5 Disclosure Requirements for Reviewers
Reviewers must:
- Decline review if a COI exists
- Disclose conflicts to the editor immediately
- Refrain from reviewing if personal, financial, or academic interests may bias assessment
Examples:
- Reviewing work of close collaborators
- Competitive research overlap
- Financial ties to the topic
If a COI is detected after review, the review will be discarded and reassigned.
1.6 Disclosure Requirements for Editors
Editors:
- Must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists
- Are prohibited from making decisions on papers authored by their students, colleagues, or collaborators
- Must disclose conflicts publicly in published articles where relevant
- Must not use unpublished data from manuscripts for personal research
If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict:
- Associate Editor or an independent guest editor handles the manuscript.
1.7 Management of Conflicts of Interest
The Editorial Office enforces the following procedures:
- Review of all COI declarations
- Transparent reporting on published manuscripts
- In cases of suspected undisclosed COIs, inquiry following COPE flowcharts
- Decisions made on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing scientific integrity
Conflicts do not automatically disqualify a manuscript if properly disclosed. Lack of disclosure, however, is treated as misconduct.
- CORRECTION AND RETRACTION OF RESEARCH ARTICLES
2.1 Introduction
Scientific publishing must maintain the integrity of the academic record. GJMHS adheres to COPE Retraction Guidelines, CrossMark policies, and best practices for scholarly correction systems.
Accuracy is essential. When errors, ethical issues, or misconduct are discovered—either before or after publication—GJMHS takes appropriate action to:
- Correct the scholarly record
- Notify readers
- Preserve transparency
- Uphold reliability of scientific literature
Actions include:
- Editorial corrections
- Expressions of concern
- Retractions
- Withdrawal of articles accepted but not published
2.2 Principles for Corrections and Retractions
GJMHS follows four essential principles:
- Accuracy
All corrections or retractions must precisely reflect the issue found.
- Transparency
Notices must clearly explain the reason for the action.
- Permanence
Corrections and retractions remain permanently available.
- Integrity
Rectifications are executed without personal bias, institutional pressure, or political influence.
2.3 Types of Post-Publication Corrections
- Erratum (Publisher Error)
Issued when errors occurred during:
- Typesetting
- Formatting
- Figure/table processing
- Author metadata entry
These do not affect the scientific validity of the article.
- Corrigendum (Author Error)
Issued when authors request correction of errors such as:
- Incorrect data labels
- Minor statistical mistakes
- Affiliation errors
- Mislabeling of tables or graphs
- Misspelled names
These errors must not alter the study’s results or conclusions.
- Addendum
Issued when additional important information was unavailable during the original publication.
2.4 Expressions of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be issued when:
- Investigations of misconduct are ongoing
- Evidence is inconclusive
- Ethical concerns arise
- Authorship disputes remain unresolved
- Data inconsistencies need further inquiry
This alerts readers without prematurely retracting the article.
2.5 Retraction Policy
A retraction is issued for:
Scientific Misconduct
- Fabrication or falsification of data
- Image manipulation
- Plagiarism
- Redundant publication
- Fake peer reviews
- Intentional misrepresentation
Ethical Violations
- Unapproved human research
- Use of identifiable patient information without consent
- IRB/ethical approval fraud
Serious Errors
- Major methodological flaws
- Incorrect conclusions due to computational or analytical errors
- Unreliable data affecting study validity
Legal Concerns
- Libelous, defamatory, or copyrighted material without permission
2.6 Retraction Procedure
- Receipt of allegation or discovery of problem
- Initial assessment by editorial office
- Consultation with COPE guidelines
- Formal correspondence with authors
- Request for raw data, ethics approvals, or clarifications
- Institutional involvement when necessary
- Decision by Editor-in-Chief
- Publication of retraction notice
- Watermarking of original article as “Retracted”
Retraction notices must:
- Be freely accessible
- Be linked to the original article
- State clear reasons
- Avoid defamatory language
- Follow CrossMark version-control standards
2.7 Removal of Published Content
Articles may be removed only when:
- Legal orders mandate removal
- Publication poses serious public health risks
- Content violates participant confidentiality in irreversible ways
In such extreme cases:
- Metadata will remain online
- Notice explaining removal will replace the article
2.8 Post-Retraction Author Sanctions
Depending on severity, authors may face:
- Temporary submission bans (6–36 months)
- Permanent ban in extreme misconduct
- Reporting to their institution or funding agencies
- Withdrawal of editorial or reviewer privileges
- ADHERENCE TO COMMUNITY STANDARDS
3.1 Introduction
GJMHS is dedicated to upholding internationally accepted scientific, ethical, and scholarly community standards. Researchers, editors, peer reviewers, and publishers share collective responsibility in ensuring:
- Scientific rigor
- Professional conduct
- Ethical compliance
- Transparency
- Respect for human participants
- Fairness and inclusivity
- Responsible data stewardship
- Best practices in reporting
The journal aligns with the expectations of the global scientific community—including WHO, COPE, ICMJE, WAME, DOAJ, UNESCO Bioethics, and ARRIVE/CONSORT/PRISMA/CARE guidelines.
3.2 Research Integrity Standards
All research must adhere to the following:
- Honesty
Data, results, methods, authorship, and references must be accurate.
- Objectivity
Interpretations must be unbiased and transparent.
- Accountability
Researchers must take responsibility for accuracy and ethical conduct.
- Good Data Management
Includes proper storage, retention, sharing, and security of data.
3.3 Methodological and Reporting Standards
To improve reproducibility and credibility, GJMHS enforces use of internationally recognized reporting frameworks, including:
- CONSORT (clinical trials)
- PRISMA (systematic reviews)
- STROBE (observational studies)
- CARE (case reports)
- ARRIVE (animal research — although GJMHS does not publish animal studies)
- CHERRIES (e-surveys)
- SRQR & COREQ (qualitative research)
Authors must follow the appropriate guideline for their article type and upload completed checklists during submission.
3.4 Respectful Scholarly Conduct
The journal promotes:
- Inclusivity and non-discrimination
Authors must avoid:
- Racial stereotypes
- Gender bias
- Inflammatory language
- Culturally insensitive statements
- Evidence-based reasoning
Claims must be supported by verifiable data.
- Respect for colleagues and reviewers
Communication must remain professional at all times.
- Avoidance of predatory practices
Authors must not engage in:
- Fake authorship
- Ghost/gift authorship
- Citation manipulation
3.5 Adherence to Ethical Community Guidelines
Authors must:
- Follow ethical norms for human research
- Avoid political, defamatory, or discriminatory content
- Ensure respectful representation of vulnerable groups
- Maintain objectivity and neutrality in scientific arguments
3.6 Community Engagement and Accountability
GJMHS works to foster a fair and responsible research culture through:
- Reviewer Training Programs
Educating peer reviewers on bias detection, ethical review, and methodological rigor.
- Editorial Workshops
Enhancing the capacity of editors to detect misconduct, plagiarism, and manipulation.
- Reader Engagement Policies
Allowing readers to submit concerns, critiques, and post-publication commentary.
- Transparency Reports
Annual summaries on:
- Number of submissions
- Acceptance rate
- Common ethical violations
- Retractions and corrections
3.7 Commitment to Global Scientific Community Values
The journal pledges to:
- Uphold scientific objectivity
- Promote equitable access to research through open access
- Encourage diverse representation in authorship
- Support early-career researchers
- Counter misinformation through rigorous review
- Maintain neutrality on religious, social, and political matters
- Ensure unbiased editorial and reviewer selection
3.8 Sanctions for Violations of Community Standards
Violations may result in:
- Manuscript rejection
- Corrections or retractions
- Author blacklisting
- Notification to funding agencies
- Withdrawal of editorial or reviewer privileges
3.9 Continuous Improvement
GJMHS regularly updates its policies to:
- Reflect emerging ethical concerns
- Address technological shifts (AI, data science, digital research)
- Respond to community feedback
- Align with evolving international standards
EDITOR SELECTION POLICY, DATA SHARING POLICY, AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE POLICY
Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS)
- EDITOR SELECTION POLICY
1.1 Introduction
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) recognizes that the credibility, academic rigor, and ethical integrity of a scholarly journal are fundamentally dependent on the quality, independence, and competence of its editorial leadership. Editors play a central role in safeguarding scientific standards, ensuring fairness in peer review, and upholding transparency and accountability in the publication process.
This Editor Selection Policy outlines the principles, eligibility criteria, selection procedures, responsibilities, tenure, evaluation mechanisms, and ethical expectations governing the appointment and functioning of editors at GJMHS. The policy is informed by best practices recommended by the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
1.2 Editorial Independence and Governance
GJMHS strictly upholds editorial independence. Editorial decisions are made autonomously and are not influenced by the publisher, sponsors, advertisers, institutional authorities, or political entities. The publisher provides administrative and infrastructural support but does not interfere in editorial judgment.
The editorial structure includes:
- Editor-in-Chief
- Associate Editors
- Section Editors
- Ethics Editor
- Statistical/Methodological Editors
- Editorial Advisory Board
Each role is clearly defined to prevent concentration of authority and to ensure checks and balances.
1.3 Eligibility Criteria for Editors
Candidates for editorial roles must meet the following minimum criteria:
Academic and Professional Qualifications
- A terminal academic or professional qualification (e.g., MD, PhD, FCPS, equivalent) in a relevant discipline
- Active engagement in medical or health sciences research
- Demonstrated publication record in peer-reviewed journals
Editorial and Research Experience
- Prior experience as a reviewer, editor, or editorial board member
- Familiarity with peer review systems and scholarly publishing workflows
- Understanding of research ethics, reporting guidelines, and publication standards
Ethical Standing
- No record of research misconduct
- Willingness to adhere strictly to COPE and ICMJE ethical frameworks
- Ability to manage conflicts of interest transparently
1.4 Selection Process
The editor selection process at GJMHS is transparent, merit-based, and documented.
Step 1: Call for Nominations
- Nominations may be solicited internally or externally
- Self-nominations are permitted with full documentation
Step 2: Submission of Credentials
Candidates must submit:
- A detailed curriculum vitae
- Statement of editorial interest and vision
- Disclosure of conflicts of interest
- Evidence of editorial or peer-review contributions
Step 3: Evaluation by Governing Body
The journal’s governing or advisory committee evaluates candidates based on:
- Academic merit
- Subject expertise
- Editorial competence
- Commitment to ethical publishing
Step 4: Appointment and Orientation
Successful candidates receive:
- Formal appointment letter
- Defined role description
- Orientation on journal policies, workflows, and ethical standards
1.5 Roles and Responsibilities of Editors
Editors at GJMHS are responsible for:
- Ensuring fair, unbiased, and timely peer review
- Selecting appropriate reviewers based on expertise
- Making editorial decisions based on scientific merit
- Identifying ethical concerns or research misconduct
- Maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process
- Ensuring compliance with journal policies and reporting guidelines
Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
1.6 Tenure, Performance Review, and Removal
Tenure
- Editorial appointments are typically for a fixed term (e.g., 2–3 years)
- Renewal is subject to performance review
Performance Evaluation
Editors are evaluated on:
- Timeliness of decisions
- Quality of editorial judgments
- Ethical compliance
- Contribution to journal development
Removal
An editor may be removed for:
- Ethical misconduct
- Persistent failure to perform duties
- Breach of confidentiality
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- DATA SHARING POLICY
2.1 Introduction
GJMHS strongly supports data transparency, reproducibility, and responsible data stewardship as cornerstones of credible scientific research. Data sharing enhances trust in research findings, enables validation of results, promotes collaboration, and accelerates scientific advancement.
This policy aligns with recommendations from:
- ICMJE
- COPE
- FAIR Data Principles
- UNESCO Open Science Framework
2.2 Scope of the Policy
This policy applies to:
- Original research articles
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Observational and interventional studies
- Qualitative and mixed-methods research
2.3 Data Availability Statement
All manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement specifying:
- Whether data are publicly available
- Where and how the data can be accessed
- Any access restrictions and their justification
- Conditions under which data may be shared upon request
2.4 Types of Data Covered
The policy covers:
- Raw datasets
- Processed datasets
- Statistical analysis files
- Survey instruments
- Code or algorithms (where applicable)
2.5 Recommended Repositories
Authors are encouraged to deposit data in:
- Institutional repositories
- Discipline-specific repositories
- General repositories (e.g., Figshare, Dryad)
Datasets should be assigned persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI) wherever possible.
2.6 Ethical and Legal Considerations
GJMHS recognizes that data sharing may be limited by:
- Patient confidentiality
- Informed consent restrictions
- Legal or regulatory requirements
- Proprietary or sensitive information
In such cases:
- Data must be anonymized where feasible
- Restrictions must be clearly stated
- Ethical approvals must support data handling decisions
2.7 Responsibilities of Authors
Authors are responsible for:
- Ensuring data accuracy and integrity
- Maintaining data securely
- Providing access as declared
- Retaining data for a reasonable period after publication
Failure to comply with declared data availability may result in editorial action.
2.8 Editorial Oversight and Compliance
Editors may:
- Request clarification on data availability
- Ask for supporting datasets during review
- Refer cases of non-compliance for investigation
Data transparency is considered part of the overall assessment of scientific rigor.
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) POLICY
3.1 Introduction
GJMHS acknowledges the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning tools in research, writing, analysis, and publishing. While AI technologies offer efficiency and innovation, they also raise ethical, legal, and scholarly concerns related to authorship, originality, bias, and accountability.
This policy aligns with:
- COPE Position Statement on AI (2023)
- ICMJE Recommendations (2024)
- International best practices on responsible AI use
3.2 Acceptable Use of AI by Authors
AI tools may be used for:
- Language editing and grammar support
- Improving clarity and readability
- Reference management support
AI tools must not:
- Generate original research data
- Replace human interpretation or analysis
- Be listed as authors
- Be used to fabricate or manipulate results
3.3 Disclosure of AI Use
Authors must:
- Disclose any use of AI tools at submission
- Describe the purpose and extent of AI assistance
- Retain full responsibility for content accuracy
Disclosure should be included in:
- Cover letter
- Manuscript (methods or acknowledgements section)
3.4 AI and Authorship
AI systems cannot qualify as authors because they:
- Cannot take responsibility
- Cannot provide consent
- Cannot be accountable for ethical compliance
All accountability rests with human authors.
3.5 Use of AI in Peer Review
Reviewers:
- May not upload manuscripts to AI tools without permission
- Must maintain confidentiality
- Must disclose any AI assistance used in review
Editors may prohibit AI use in review if confidentiality is compromised.
3.6 Detection of AI-Generated Content
The journal reserves the right to:
- Use AI-detection or forensic tools
- Request clarification from authors
- Reject manuscripts with undisclosed or inappropriate AI use
3.7 Ethical Concerns and Bias
AI systems may introduce:
- Bias
- Inaccuracies
- Hallucinated content
Authors and editors must exercise critical oversight and ensure compliance with scientific and ethical standards.
3.8 Future Policy Development
GJMHS recognizes that AI technology is rapidly evolving. This policy will be:
- Periodically reviewed
- Updated in line with international guidance
- Communicated transparently to stakeholders
CONCLUSION
Through these policies, the Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences demonstrates its commitment to:
- Robust editorial governance
- Transparent and responsible data practices
- Ethical and accountable use of emerging technologies
These frameworks strengthen the journal’s scientific credibility, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, and align GJMHS with leading international standards in medical and health sciences publishing.
GRANT SUPPORT
Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS)
- GRANT SUPPORT
1.1 Introduction
The Ghurki Journal of Medical and Health Sciences (GJMHS) recognizes that research funding and grant support play a vital role in advancing scientific knowledge, enabling high-quality study design, supporting data collection and analysis, and facilitating dissemination of impactful findings. At the same time, transparent reporting of grant support is essential to preserve scientific integrity, editorial independence, and public trust in published research.
GJMHS is committed to full transparency regarding all forms of financial and non-financial support associated with submitted and published research. This policy is guided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) best practices, and global standards for responsible research funding disclosure.
1.2 Scope of the Grant Support Policy
This policy applies to all submissions to GJMHS, including but not limited to:
- Original research articles
- Clinical and observational studies
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Public health and community-based research
- Methodological and educational studies
The policy covers all sources of support, whether direct or indirect, financial or in-kind.
1.3 Definition of Grant Support
Grant support refers to any financial, material, logistical, or institutional assistance that contributed to the conduct of the research or preparation of the manuscript. This includes:
- Research grants from government agencies
- Institutional or university research funding
- Support from hospitals or research centers
- Funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
- Philanthropic foundations
- Industry or commercial sponsorship
- In-kind contributions such as equipment, software, laboratory access, or personnel support
1.4 Disclosure Requirements for Authors
All authors submitting manuscripts to GJMHS must clearly disclose grant support information at the time of submission.
Mandatory Disclosure Elements
Authors must state:
- Name of the funding organization(s)
- Grant number(s), where applicable
- Type of support provided
- Role of the funder in:
- Study design
- Data collection
- Data analysis
- Manuscript preparation
- Decision to submit or publish
If no grant or external funding was received, authors must explicitly state:
“This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”
1.5 Placement of Grant Support Information
Grant support information must be included:
- In the Funding Statement section of the manuscript
- In the submission metadata during online submission
- Where relevant, in the Conflict of Interest declaration
This ensures transparency for reviewers, editors, and readers.
1.6 Role of Funders and Editorial Independence
GJMHS strictly maintains editorial independence regardless of funding source.
Funders must not:
- Influence editorial decisions
- Control data interpretation
- Restrict access to study findings
- Interfere with peer review
Authors must confirm that:
- They had full access to all data
- They retain responsibility for data accuracy and interpretation
- The decision to publish was independent of funder influence
Any attempt by a funding body to influence editorial decisions will result in rejection of the manuscript and possible notification to relevant authorities.
1.7 Industry-Sponsored Research
GJMHS accepts industry-funded research provided that:
- Full disclosure of sponsorship is made
- Ethical approvals are clearly documented
- Data integrity and methodological rigor are demonstrated
- The role of the sponsor is transparently stated
Industry sponsorship alone does not disqualify a manuscript; however, undisclosed sponsorship or manipulation of outcomes constitutes serious ethical misconduct.
1.8 Verification and Editorial Oversight
Editors may:
- Request additional clarification regarding funding
- Ask for grant documentation if inconsistencies arise
- Evaluate whether funding introduces potential bias
Failure to disclose grant support accurately may lead to:
- Rejection prior to publication
- Correction or retraction after publication
- Notification to the author’s institution or funding body
1.9 Grant Acknowledgement and Indexing
Accurate grant disclosure supports:
- Indexing in international databases
- Compliance with funder open-access mandates
- Long-term transparency in the scholarly record
GJMHS ensures that grant information is preserved in article metadata and remains permanently accessible.
1.10 Commitment to Ethical Research Funding
GJMHS encourages:
- Ethical grant acquisition
- Responsible use of research funds
- Research addressing public health priorities
- Equitable access to funding for early-career researchers
By promoting transparent grant disclosure, GJMHS strengthens trust in medical and health sciences research and aligns with global open science principles.
