EDITORIAL POLICIES
Introduction
Welcome to Trends in NanoMed (TNM), an international, open access, peer reviewed journal published biannually online by Molecule Publishing House. Trends in NanoMed (TNM) is dedicated to the dissemination of high-quality scientific research and advancements in field of nanomedicine. Our primary focus is to publish original research articles, reviews, and other scholarly contributions that significantly contribute to the existing knowledge base, advance the field, and have a potential impact on scientific, academic, or practical applications.
As an esteemed publication, we hold ourselves to the highest editorial standards to ensure the integrity, credibility, and transparency of the research we publish. As such, we proudly endorse and implement the guidelines and recommendations established by esteemed organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). These widely recognized bodies provide invaluable guidance in maintaining the rigor and credibility of the review and publication processes.
Our editorial board consists of distinguished experts in the field of nanomedicine, who play an integral role in maintaining the journal’s high standards. Reviewers are meticulously selected based on their expertise, ensuring comprehensive and constructive evaluations.
Please note that we will update these policies periodically to maintain alignment with any new regulations recommended by the organizations listed above.
Editorial Independence Policy
At Trends in NanoMed (TNM), we strongly uphold the principles of editorial independence to ensure the integrity and unbiased nature of the research we publish. Our commitment to maintaining editorial independence is crucial in preserving the credibility and trustworthiness of our peer-reviewed journal. This policy outlines the guidelines and procedures we follow to safeguard the independence of our editorial decision-making process.
Decision-Making Autonomy
Editors and reviewers associated have the freedom to evaluate and make decisions on manuscripts solely based on their academic and scientific merit. They are expected to exercise their professional judgment without any undue influence from external parties, including publishers, sponsors, or other individuals or organizations with a vested interest.
Conflicts of Interest
We are dedicated to identifying and mitigating any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of our editorial process. Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that may influence their judgment or create a perceived conflict. Any conflicts identified will be promptly addressed, and appropriate actions, such as recusal or assignment of alternative reviewers, will be taken to ensure unbiased evaluation.
Editorial Board Composition
The composition of our editorial board is carefully selected to represent diverse expertise, perspectives, and geographical regions within the field. Board members are chosen based on their knowledge, experience, and reputation, ensuring a broad and balanced representation of the scientific community. We maintain a transparent process for appointing and reappointing editorial board members, avoiding any undue influence in the selection process.
Editorial Freedom
Editors of Trends in NanoMed (TNM) have full editorial freedom and authority in the decision-making process. They are responsible for assessing the scientific rigor, relevance, and significance of submitted manuscripts, and for selecting qualified reviewers to conduct thorough evaluations. Editorial decisions, including acceptance, revision, or rejection, are made based on the objective evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific merit, methodology, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
Publisher Independence
While we work closely with our publisher to ensure the smooth functioning of the journal, the editorial decision-making process remains independent from any undue influence exerted by the publisher. The publisher’s role is primarily focused on facilitating the administrative aspects of the journal, such as manuscript submission, peer-review coordination, and production. They do not have the authority to interfere in the editorial evaluation or decision-making process.
Transparency & Accountability
We are committed to maintaining transparency and accountability in our editorial processes. Authors can expect clear and timely communication regarding the status of their submissions, and when decisions are made, they receive constructive feedback from reviewers and editors. We also provide a mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions, ensuring that all concerns are addressed in a fair and transparent manner.
Open Access
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) is an open access journal. This means that all articles published in TNM are freely available online to anyone, without any financial, legal, or technical barriers. Our journal provides unrestricted access to research articles, allowing researchers and the general public to read, download, copy, distribute, and use the articles without any restrictions, as long as they give appropriate credit to the original authors and publishers.
Copyrights Policy
All articles published in Trends in NanoMed (TNM) are licensed under an open access Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) 
.
Under the CC BY 4.0 license, copyrights are retained by the authors, and anyone can have free and unlimited access, reuse, read and download any article for free. No permission is needed to reuse any part of articles published by Trends in NanoMed (TNM), including figures and tables. However, the original source must be clearly cited.
A copyright statement will appear in the published articles. Authors must sign a License for Publishing agreement prior to their article’s formal publication, which gives Molecule Publication House permission to publish the article and its supplementary materials in Trends in NanoMed (TNM) under the CC BY license.
Peer Review Policy
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) employs a rigorous peer review process to ensure that all submitted manuscripts are of high quality and make a significant contribution to the field. All submitted manuscripts will undergo a single-blind peer review model, in which the identities of the reviewers are kept anonymous from the authors, but the authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, to reduce the potential for bias and ensure a fair and impartial evaluation of the manuscript.
Peer review process
The peer review process is a collaborative effort that involves several parties, including the editorial office (managing editor), the editor-in-chief/academic editor, and the reviewers.
The editorial office is responsible for managing the review process, which includes identifying and inviting qualified reviewers, managing communication between authors and reviewers, and ensuring that the review process is conducted in a timely and efficient manner.
The editor-in-chief/academic editor oversees the review process and makes the final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript based on the reviewers’ feedback and their own assessment of the manuscript’s quality and contribution to the field.
The reviewers play a critical role in evaluating the manuscript, providing constructive feedback to the authors, and helping to maintain the integrity and quality of the journal’s content. For more information on the role of reviewers, please refer to Reviewers’ guidelines.
By working together, these parties help to ensure that the peer review process is rigorous, fair, and transparent.
Initial Screening
All submissions will first be screened by the editorial office (managing editor) to ensure that they meet the journal’s scope and formatting requirements. The manuscript is also checked for plagiarism check through iThenticate.
Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be returned to the authors without review.
The editor-in-chief may also reject submissions that do not appear to be of sufficient quality or importance to be considered for publication.
Conducting Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers. The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript for originality, clarity, methodology, data analysis, and significance to the field. They will also assess whether the manuscript adheres to ethical standards and provides appropriate citations to previous research.
Reviewers will submit their evaluations through an online system, which will remain confidential. The reviewers will be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:
֎ Accept the manuscript as is
֎ Accept the manuscript with minor revisions
֎ Accept the manuscript with major revision
֎ Reject the manuscript
The editor-in-chief/academic editor will consider the reviewers’ comments and make a final decision. If the decision is to accept the manuscript with revisions, the authors will be given a deadline to submit a revised version of the manuscript. The revised manuscript will be evaluated by the editor-in-chief or one of the original reviewers to ensure that the revisions have been addressed satisfactorily.
Appeals
If the authors disagree with the editor’s decision, they may appeal the decision by submitting a letter to the editorial office. The letter should explain the reasons for the appeal and provide any additional information that may be relevant. The editor-in-chief will consider the appeal and may request additional reviews.
Final Decision
The editor-in-chief’s decision is final. The journal does not accept resubmissions of rejected manuscripts, except in rare cases where the authors can provide compelling evidence that the reviewers’ evaluations were biased or unfair. Accepted manuscripts will be published online, subject to copyediting and layout formatting.
Article Processing Charge (APC)
All articles published Trends in NanoMed (TNM) during 2024 will receive a full waiver of the article processing charge. Absolutely no fees are payable for article submission or publication.
Archive
All published articles will be stored in appropriate archives to ensure long-term digital preservation. In addition, authors are encouraged to deposit their articles on other suitable platforms. Ensuring that any institutional or funder requirements for archiving are met falls under the responsibility of the authors.
Authorship
Definition
All individuals who have contributed significantly to the research should be listed as authors on the manuscript.
As defined by ICMJE, authorship is based on the following 4 criteria:
֎ Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
֎ Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
֎ Final approval of the version to be published; AND
֎ Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Those who have made smaller contributions should be acknowledged in the manuscript. All authors should have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding Author
When a manuscript has more than one author, one of them should be designated as the corresponding author. The corresponding author serves as the primary point of contact between the authors and the journal, and is responsible for managing communication between co-authors. Specifically, the corresponding author is responsible for handling all submission requests, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, and clinical trial registration documentation. Additionally, the corresponding author is responsible for gathering conflicts of interest statements and other statements required by the journal. Throughout the submission, peer review, and production process, the corresponding author should be available to respond promptly to any queries or requests from the journal. After publication, the corresponding author should be available to address any critiques of the work, answer questions about the paper, and deal with any requests from the journal for data or additional information.
Group Authorship
In cases where a large multi-author group has conducted the work, it is important for the group to collectively decide who will be listed as authors. All individuals listed as authors should meet the above-mentioned criteria and be able to take public responsibility for the work.
In cases where multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, the group name should be listed as an author. Group members, if provided, will be listed in a separate section at the end of the article.
In cases where multiple authors are involved, if the group has designated a group name, it should be included as an author in the authorship listing. Members of the group , if provided, will be listed separately at the end of the article in a designated section for this purpose.
In cases where work is presented by the author(s) on behalf of a group, it should be included in the author list separated with the wording “”on behalf of.”
Authorship Disputes
Authorship disputes can occur when there are disagreements over who should be credited as an author. Any disputes regarding authorship should be addressed promptly, transparently and in accordance with the COPE guidelines. We encourage authors to resolve disputes among themselves in the first instance, but if this is not possible, the matter will be referred to the editor. The editor will investigate the dispute thoroughly, seeking input from all parties involved. The editor may seek advice from experts and may also consult the journal’s editorial board. The investigation will be documented and communicated to all parties involved.
It is important to note that the responsibility of investigating authorship disputes should not fall solely on the journal editor. In cases where agreement cannot be reached, institution(s) where the work was carried out should take the lead in investigating and resolving the dispute.
If an authorship dispute is found to have affected the integrity of the publication, appropriate corrections will be made. This may include correction of authorship, retraction of the publication, or other appropriate actions.
Author Contributions
To ensure proper attribution of authorship and clarify individual responsibility and accountability for published research, it is required to include an Author Contributions statement in the Declarations section of their manuscript. This statement serves to delineate the specific contributions of each author to the study, and provide transparency and clarity to the publication process, ensuring that credit is appropriately assigned to all contributors.
For more details on the roles typically played by contributors to research outputs, please refer to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy).
Acknowledgements
This is a brief statement at the end of the article that acknowledges individuals or organizations, who provided technical assistance, advice, or other support during the research. The acknowledgment section should not be used to promote commercial products or services or to make political statements. Authors should keep this section brief and should obtain the consent of those they wish to acknowledge before including their names in the acknowledgment section.
Funding
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) requires authors to disclose all sources of funding (institutional, private and corporate financial support) received for the research presented in the manuscript. As part of the submission process, authors should include the funding information under the heading ‘Funding’ in the declarations section at the end of the article. If the manuscript does not involve any external funding, authors should state “Not applicable” in the funding declaration statement.
Confidentiality
The confidentiality of the editorial and peer review process is of utmost importance to the journal. Therefore, editors, authors, and reviewers are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all details of the submission and review process. This includes any correspondence related to the review process, which should also be treated as confidential by all parties, including authors.
Reviewers must treat the manuscript they are reviewing as confidential and must not share its contents with anyone outside of the review process without the editor’s permission. The identity of the reviewers will also be kept confidential. Reviewers are strictly not permitted to disclose their identities to authors or initiate any direct communication with authors, unless prior permission has been granted by the editorial office.
It is strictly prohibited to use any unpublished information presented in a manuscript for purposes other than the scientific review process. This includes any data, findings, or ideas that are described in the manuscript but have not yet been made public through formal publication.
Editors should treat all manuscripts and their contents as confidential, and should not disclose any information about them to anyone without the authors’ permission.
The journal values confidentiality and will not disclose any information regarding a manuscript or its authors to third parties prior to formal publication, unless there are reasonable suspicions of misconduct. If such suspicions arise, the editorial office will first inform the authors and reviewers involved before taking any steps to break confidentiality in the interest of maintaining the integrity of the publication.
Data Availability & Sharing Policy
To enable reuse and enhance reproducibility, our journal is committed to promoting the availability and sharing of materials and data used in research articles.
Authors are strongly encouraged to make the data underlying the conclusions made in their manuscript available to other researchers, wherever legally and ethically possible. This includes raw data, processed data, and any other relevant data necessary for reproducing the study’s results.
Whenever possible, authors are encouraged to deposit their data in publicly accessible repositories or databases. Authors should provide proper citations to the datasets used in their research. Data citations should also include relevant information such as author(s), title, publication year, version (if applicable), and persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI or URL) whenever available. Authors should ensure that appropriate citations and acknowledgments are provided for the datasets used in their research.
During the peer review process or before manuscript acceptance, authors may be asked to provide details of any existing datasets that have been analyzed in the manuscript. This includes information about the dataset’s origin, accessibility, and any restrictions or limitations associated with its use.
We recognize that there may be valid reasons for not sharing certain types of data, such as sensitive or confidential information, proprietary datasets, or legal restrictions. In such cases, authors should clearly state the reasons for non-disclosure in their manuscript. However, it is still expected that authors provide sufficient information about the data collection, processing, and analysis methods to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Conflicts of Interest
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) conflicts of interest policy aligns with the recommendations provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. To prevent conflicts of interest, authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may exist when submitting their research articles for publication in Trends in NanoMed (TNM). Journal editors can then evaluate the potential impact of these conflicts on the research and take appropriate actions, such as excluding a reviewer or requesting further disclosures from the author. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all co-authors are made aware of the necessity to disclose any conflicts of interest.
If a reviewer has a conflict of interest related to a submitted article, they should disclose the conflict of interest to the editorial team. If a conflict of interest exists that may prevent a reviewer from forming an impartial scientific judgment, they are requested to recuse themselves from handling the paper. However, if a reviewer has a potential conflict of interest, but believes that it does not compromise their ability to make an objective assessment of the manuscript, they should disclose the conflict to the editorial office. This information is then taken into account by the editors when making decisions regarding the publication of the manuscript. By disclosing any potential conflicts, reviewers can uphold the integrity of the peer-review process and ensure that their judgments are fair and unbiased. This ultimately helps to maintain the credibility of the research and the publication process as a whole.
If a member of the editorial team has a conflict of interest related to a submitted article, they will recuse themselves from the peer-review process for that article. Additionally, to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, separate editors are assigned to handle manuscripts submitted by editorial board members and guest editors. The submitting editor is not involved in either the review process or the decision-making process to avoid any potential conflicts of interest
Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that all work presented in their manuscript is original and does not contain any plagiarized content. Any sources used should be properly cited and acknowledged. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and manuscripts suspected of plagiarism will not be considered for publication.
All manuscripts submitted to Trends in NanoMed (TNM) will be subject to a plagiarism check using the plagiarism detection software iThanenticate.
If a suspected plagiarism issue is identified, it will be examined further according to the COPE Guidelines. As a result, the manuscript may be rejected, corrected, or retracted.
The journal may notify the authors’ institutions in certain situations. It is anticipated that the editors and peer reviewers will alert the journal of any plagiarism concerns during any stage of the peer-review process, publication, or even after publication. Additionally, we encourage readers to report any suspected instances of plagiarism following publication.
More information on our plagiarism policy can be found here.
Misconduct
Misconduct by authors in publishing refers to actions or behaviors that violate ethical standards and compromise the integrity and credibility of the published record of scientific research.
Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, falsification and misrepresentation of data, duplicate submission, plagiarism, improper award or denial of authorship, lack of declaration, failure to follow ethical procedures, and failure to obtain informed consent.
At Trends in NanoMed (TNM), we take any allegations of potential misconduct very seriously and follow the guidelines laid out by COPE Flowcharts to ensure that any such issues are handled appropriately.
Duplicate Publication
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) strictly accepts only original content, which implies that articles must not have been published previously or submitted for publication, including in any language other than English. Authors should exercise caution and transparency in their manuscript to ensure a fair and impartial evaluation of their work. In case any related materials are under consideration or are in press elsewhere, authors are requested to mention it in their cover letter.
Duplication of previously published work, in whole or in part, is considered a serious violation of scientific ethics and will not be tolerated. All submitted manuscripts are screened for similarity using plagiarism detection software. If duplicate publication is detected, the manuscript will be immediately rejected or withdrawn from consideration, and the authors may be barred from submitting to the journal in the future. If duplicate publication is discovered after publication, the journal reserves the right to issue a retraction or correction, and may notify the authors’ institution and/or funding agencies of the violation. Authors are responsible for disclosing any previous publications or submissions related to the manuscript at the time of submission, and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder for any material that has been previously published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Exceptions that may not be considered as duplicate publication include manuscripts posted on a preprint server, academic theses, and conference abstracts.
Preprint Policy
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) allows authors to share preprints of their manuscripts on preprint servers or other platforms, such as arXiv, bioRxiv, or SSRN, at any time before or during the peer review process. Authors are encouraged to cite their preprint in their final published article.
However, the journal requires that authors do not post the final version of their manuscript, as accepted for publication, on any preprint server or other public platform. Once the manuscript is published, the journal encourages authors to update the preprint record with a link to the final published article. The journal does not consider prior publication of a manuscript on a preprint server or other public platform as a disqualifying factor for publication. However, the journal reserves the right to take into consideration any feedback or comments received from the preprint server or other platform during the peer review process.
This policy aims to promote open access to research and encourage the sharing of scientific knowledge while ensuring that the peer review process is not compromised and the final published article is the definitive version of the manuscript.
Citation Manipulation
As defined by COPE, “citation manipulation” refers to the following types of behaviour:
֎ Excessive citation of an author’s research by the author (ie, self-citation by authors) as a means solely of increasing the number of citations of the author’s work;
֎ Excessive citation of articles from the journal in which the author is publishing a research article as a means solely of increasing the number of citations of the journal; or
֎ Excessive citation of the work of another author or journal, sometimes referred to as ‘honorary’ citations (eg, the editor-in-chief of the journal to which one is submitting a manuscript or a well-known scholar in the field of the researcher) or ‘citation stacking’ solely to contribute to the citations of the author(s)/ journal(s) in question.
Citation manipulation is considered a serious breach of research ethics and can have negative consequences for both the author and the scientific community as a whole. It is important for authors to be aware of the proper citation practices and to avoid any actions that could be construed as manipulation. Please refer to Citation Manipulation document issued by COPE.
CrossMark Policy
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) is a participant in the CrossMark program, a service provided by CrossRef. The CrossMark logo is used to indicate the current status of an article and provide additional information to readers.
The CrossMark logo will appear on all articles published in Trends in NanoMed (TNM) that have been registered with CrossRef. Clicking the CrossMark logo will provide readers with information about the current status of the article, including any updates, corrections, or retractions.
The CrossMark logo is an indication of the commitment of Trends in NanoMed (TNM) to providing accurate and reliable research. We encourage our readers to use the CrossMark logo to stay informed about the current status of our articles and to help ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.
Corrections Policy
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) strives to ensure the accuracy and integrity of published articles. If errors are discovered after publication, the journal will publish an erratum that describes the error and provides corrected information. The erratum will be linked to the original article and listed in the table of contents of the issue in which it appears. The corrected version of the article will be registered with CrossRef and will be indicated by the CrossMark logo.
Retraction Policy
In rare cases, the journal may need to retract a published article. This may be due to errors in data or methodology, serious ethical violations, plagiarism, or other reasons that compromise the integrity of the publication.
Based on COPE guidelines for retracting articles, the journal will consider retraction of a published article when:
֎ There is a clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation);
֎ It constitutes plagiarism;
֎ The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e. redundant publication);
֎ It contains material or data without necessary authorization for use;
֎ Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy);
֎ It reports unethical research;
֎ It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process;
֎ The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest or conflict of interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
The decision to retract a published article is made by the journal’s editorial board in consultation with the authors, reviewers, and other relevant parties, as appropriate. The journal may also consult with legal counsel and take other appropriate actions as necessary to protect the integrity of the publication.
If the decision to retract a published article is made, the journal will publish a retraction notice that clearly explains the reason for the retraction and any corrections to the scientific record that may be necessary. The retraction notice will be linked to the original article and listed in the table of contents of the issue in which it appears. The journal will make all reasonable efforts to notify all readers who may have accessed the original article of the retraction and the reason for it. The retracted article will be registered with CrossRef and will be indicated by the CrossMark logo.
This policy aims to promote transparency, accountability, and scientific rigor, and to protect the integrity of the publication and the scientific record.
Appeals & Complaints Policy
Trends in NanoMed (TNM) is committed to providing a fair and transparent peer-review process for all submitted articles, and we encourage authors and reviewers to contact us with any concerns they may have. We take all appeals and complaints seriously and will make every effort to address them promptly and appropriately. All appeals and complaints will be handled in a confidential and professional manner.
Appeals
If an author believes that a decision made by the editorial team or reviewers was incorrect or unfair, they may appeal the decision. Appeals must be made in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 14 days of the original decision. The appeal should include a detailed explanation of the grounds for the appeal and any supporting evidence.
The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may consult with the original reviewers and/or other members of the editorial team. If the Editor-in-Chief determines that the original decision was incorrect or unfair, they may recommend that the article be reconsidered for publication. If the original decision is upheld, the author will be provided with a detailed explanation of the reasons for the decision.
Please contact the editorial office at office@moleculepub.com to submit your appeals.
Complaints
If an author or reviewer has a complaint about the peer-review process or the conduct of a member of the editorial team, they should contact the Editor-in-Chief in writing. Complaints should include a detailed explanation of the issue and any supporting evidence.
Please contact the editorial office at office@moleculepub.com to submit your Complaints.
The Editor-in-Chief will review the complaint and may consult with other members of the editorial team. If the complaint is found to be valid, appropriate actions will be taken to address the issue. If the complaint is not found to be valid, the complainant will be provided with a detailed explanation of the reasons for the decision.
If the complaint involves the Editor-in-Chief or there is a conflict of interest, please contact the publisher at info@moleculepub.com.
