Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) is committed to publishing and widely disseminating high-quality scholarly content. Its editorial operations adhere to rigorous ethical standards that uphold transparency and fairness. We acknowledge that the scholarly publishing ecosystem involves multiple stakeholders, including editors, authors, reviewers, and publishers. We expect all parties to have a shared understanding of, and adherence to, the journal’s policies on publication ethics and malpractice. Our ethical guidelines are closely aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices. By submitting a manuscript to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ), authors agree to adhere to the journal’s publication ethics and malpractice policy.

1. Responsibility of the Author
Reporting standards
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality
Authors will submit only entirely original works and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.
   Authors should express their primary ideas and tasks explicitly, even if they have been revised and quoted objectively. If precise sentences or paragraphs are seen in a research article, which seem to be an extract from an essay or a citation from another author, this sentence should be put in quotation marks. The essay ought to specify the origin of each applied datum and also all data. If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks. Authors should not submit an article that has been previously submitted to this journal, assessed, and finally disapproved by the editor. If the first version was disapproved and the author is willing to submit a modified version for assessment, the essay resubmission justification should be clearly explained to the author or the editor. The permission for essay resubmission for the second time is possible in a particular situation.

Plagiarism
The article registration will inform all authors by sending an email to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) website. It is evident that inserting the author’s name in the article is considered as his/her main role in writing the essay if the essay authors have no role in writing the essay and their name has not been mentioned. It is necessary to inform the recipient of the received information by email immediately. All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work. All assessment rights for plagiarism checking in the journal are reserved.
    Plagiarism has a variety of forms:
1. to insert the authors and researchers’ names who have no role in the article.
 2. to copy or repeat the most significant part of another article (even if the copied article is related to the author of a new essay).
 3. to present the outcomes and results of others' research as one's own.
 4. to express false results, in contrast with scientific findings, or distort the outcomes of the research.
 5. continuous publishing by a single author in some journals.
 6. to apply unreliable data or manipulate research data.
   The journal editors will study plagiarism items to see the validity and the efforts of researchers without any overlook or indulgence based on the level of plagiarism then legally pursue as follows:
1. The article will be disapproved, and in case of publishing, it will be retracted.
 2. The names of the authors will be inserted in the blacklist journals of the publisher.
 3. It will be prosecuted by qualified legal and judicial references.
 4. By writing an official letter, the plagiarism file is shared with other related journals.
 5. By writing an official letter to the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, databases, universities, institutes, and journals, or wherever the author has used the printing rate of this article, they are informed of the procedure.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications
In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts that have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by one journal should not be submitted to other publications while the manuscript is under review. For the publication of creative works, the journal may make exceptions to the previously published rule; please consult the editor.

Acknowledgment of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship Criteria
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All individuals who have made such significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in specific substantive aspects of the research project but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included, that no inappropriate co-authors are listed, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
    All the listed authors should work diligently on the research article to take responsibility for the results. The authorship should be shared in proportion to the respective contributions of the individuals involved. Each author should assume responsibility for the integrity and validity of the work, but only for the parts in which they have directly participated or to which they have made a substantive contribution. Faculty members should list the student’s name as the main author if the article is derived from a dissertation or thesis of a student. The corresponding author, upon submitting the manuscript to the journal, is obliged to furnish all co-authors with a copy of the work in order to ensure their full awareness of, and engagement with, the submission and subsequent publication process.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor at the earliest stage possible. Readers should be informed about who has funded the research and the role of the funders in the research.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author must promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
 
Conflict of Interest
The author should express the resources of the financial scheme in the text of the article and then apply to submit it. Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with the article. If the type of situation, which shows the contrast, is doubtful, it should be clarified; any item in the field of conflict of interest should inform the editor or the publishing office. The corresponding author can recommend a probable reviewer for the article at the time of submitting the essay to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ). Authors must avoid any potential conflicts or actions in selecting the editors and reviewers. This kind of conflict of interest is not only applied to the corresponding author but also includes all the co-authors of the article. The examples of conflicts of interest are as follows:
1. One of the authors is from the same institution or university as the reviewer is in that institution.
 2. One of the authors is a member of the thesis committee who has been a reviewer or editor and vice versa.
 3. One of the authors, editors, or reviewers, who is the co-author in another article, or has been a co-author of an article in the past two years.
   Authors should not introduce or name the reviewers who know them and have previously read the manuscript in some way and have put forward their hypothesis, because this movement is contrary to the hidden assessment process of the article automatically. Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or our reviewers’ board should be reviewed by referees from outside. Articles submitted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee for review or revision and resubmission by the author if necessary.

Double-blind peer-review
The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) follows a double-blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and not reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, the article should not include any information like self-revelation so that the reviewer can identify the author. Authors should not publish their submitted articles on personal or social websites (either articles or first versions), because authors can be identified easily by reviewers on the Web. Authors should not mention the people as reviewers where previously the manuscript or a copy has been studied and suggested his/her recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is contrary to the double-blind peer-review process.

Precision
The authors are finally responsible for the whole content of the submitted article to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ). Authors are in charge of representing a precise perspective of the research done as well as an objective debate, especially for the study’s importance. Authors should report their findings thoroughly, not eliminating data relevant to the text or structure of research questions. Regardless of whether it supports the expected outcomes or being in contrast, results should be reported. Authors should present the features or relevant characteristics of their research, their findings, and their interpretation precisely. Fundamental suggestions, theories, methods, and research schemes relevant to findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected to.
   The article should contain all the necessary details and resources in a way that researchers can access the same data collection to repeat the research. If an author discovers a mistake or an important carelessness, he/she is responsible for informing the editor-in-chief and the procedure immediately to cooperate with the article modification or revision. If the author or publication, by a third person or party, understands that the published article is suffering from a monumental error, the author is responsible for applying the article modification or revision, as well as providing the evidence to the editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.

Human rights
Authors are in charge of preserving and supporting privacy, human dignity, human freedom, and welfare, as well as research participants. The articles involved in human affairs (field studies, simulations, interviews) should be done according to human rights regulations.

Being up to date
Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and modify the articles. If an author cannot act before the deadline (maximum one month), he/she should contact the editor-in-chief for an extension or refusal from the assessment process at once.

2. Responsibility of the Editor
The editor’s chief responsibility is to determine which submissions to the journal will be published. He/she must ensure that decisions are made based on the manuscript’s merit and that the author’s race, gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or citizenship are not considered.

Confidentiality
Information concerning a submitted manuscript should only be revealed to the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial board members, or the publisher as required or otherwise appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Reviewers will recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart. Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further.

Independence
Editors should preserve their pen and paper independence to work and make sure that authors are free to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles, which typically depend on the ideas applied, and recommendations of reviewers; by the way, the articles, which are inappropriate from the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers’ assessment.
 
No biases
Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, constructively, and unbiasedly. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.

Conflict of Interest
Editors should avoid any action, which increases conflicts of interest with its unreasonable aspect. For instance, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, the editor is not allowed to publish an article, which is not clearly identified, reviewed, or partly reviewed. Liability, writing authority, and editing each article by the editor, submitted to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ), should be submitted by the editor to another qualified person, like the previous editor or one of the members of the editorial board. Editors should avoid any article study, which is in contrast with their real or potential conflicts of interest. The contrast may be due to the competitive, partnership, financial, or other relations with any other companies, organizations, or institutes related to the article. The examples related to the relations, which show the conflict of interest between the editor or author, are:
1. Both the author and editor have been employed by one institute.
 2. The editor has been a member of the dissertation committee of the author or vice versa.
 3. The editor and the author are currently co-workers and co-authors in another article or have been co-authors in an article in the past two years.

Double-Blind Peer-Review
The journal follows a double-blind peer-review in which authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. Assessment standards should be expressed clearly and concisely.

Confidentiality
Editors and their editorial boards are not allowed to reveal relevant information about the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of the assessment process. Editors are expected to ensure the confidentiality of the double-blind peer-review process and the lack of information revelation, which may reveal the author’s identity to reviewers and vice versa. Reviewers’ anonymity can be breached only when reviewers permit editors to reveal their identities. Editors should make sure that their editorial boards are compatible and coordinated with them. Some parts of a submitted article, which have not been published, are not allowed to be used in the personal research of an editor without the author’s written permission. Confidential ideas or information, which has been obtained by article assessment, should be kept private, not to be used for private benefits.

Assessment Quality
Typically, two reviewers are invited to express their ideas about an article. The editor should evaluate all assessments qualitatively. The editor may rarely edit an assessed article before submitting it to the author (for example, eliminating an expression, which reveals the reviewer’s identity or not sending the assessed article if it is not constructive or appropriate. Rankings and scores of assessment quality, as well as other functional features, are assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of the optimized operation of the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ). These scores and rankings should help decision-making in the field of reappointment of reviewing teams and continuous requests. Individual operation data should be accessible to editors and kept confidential.

Being up to date
To guarantee the article’s assessment and quick response to the authors’ requests about assessment status by a determined deadline (maximum one week after receiving the article), editors should apply primary assessment and reviewer selection.

Quality of decision
Editors are responsible for describing the decisions of the editorial boards to authors and their articles. Editors should write high-quality letters where these letters represent the combination of the reviewers’ recommendations and extra suggestions for another author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the letter format without an explanation of the advice and suggestions of the reviewer.

Precision
If the editor receives credible evidence from a reviewer indicating that an unpublished manuscript is based on erroneous concepts or unreliable results, the editor should inform the author of the concerns and outline the editorial procedure to be followed. If similar concerns arise regarding a published article, the editor should initiate appropriate post-publication actions, such as issuing a correction, retraction, or expression of concern, in accordance with established scholarly publishing guidelines (e.g., those of the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE), and clearly communicate the issue to readers through appropriate editorial notices.
 
Authority
If the Editor receives credible evidence from a reviewer indicating that an unpublished manuscript is based on erroneous concepts or unreliable results, the Editor should inform the author of the concerns and outline the editorial procedure to be followed. If similar concerns arise regarding a published article, the Editor should initiate appropriate post-publication actions, such as issuing a correction, retraction, or expression of concern, in accordance with established scholarly publishing guidelines (e.g., those of the Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE), and clearly communicate the issue to readers through appropriate editorial notices. 

Operation
The Editor should design the operation in full operational detail, taking account of all policy, technical, economic, financial, institutional, management, environmental, socio-cultural, and gender-related aspects. The journal is going to be published based on annual auditing related to admission level, publishing intervals, submitted articles percentage for revision, and foreign revision as well as the operation data. Operation indexes ought to improve the journal operation for assessing the evolution of articles, along with publishing processes.

3. Responsibility of Reviewers
Purpose of Peer-Review
The peer-review process is a crucial component in helping the editor and/or editorial board reach editorial or publishing decisions and may serve the author in improving the quality of the submission.

Promptness
A potential reviewer should withdraw from the review process if he/she feels unqualified to assess the contribution or cannot provide an assessment in a timely manner as defined by the editor.

Confidentiality
Manuscripts for review must be considered confidential documents. Information concerning the manuscripts should not be discussed with others without the approval of the editor.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
   Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles, which they think are involved in a conflict of interest, such as shared financial, organizational, and personal benefits, or any connections with other companies, institutes, or related individuals with the essay, or the reviewers who may have a conflict of interest in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. For instance, a reviewer may simultaneously be evaluating a manuscript for the same journal, or another journal, that is similar in topic or scope to the one under consideration. Under the double-blind peer review process, reviewers are unaware of the authors’ identities, making it unlikely that they recognize any potential conflict of interest involving the authors. Consequently, such conflicts do not typically constrain their evaluations. However, if a reviewer becomes aware of a possible conflict of interest, they are ethically obligated to disclose it to the editor of the journal. 

Objectivity
Reviewers should strive to be objective in their assessments. Reviewers’ comments should be clearly expressed and supported by data or arguments. Personal criticism of the author(s) is not appropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be supported by an appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should bring to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they are personally aware.

Reciprocal communication
Peer review and evaluation are professional responsibilities that contribute significantly to the integrity and advancement of scholarly communication. Researchers who submit their manuscripts to a journal are generally expected to accept invitations to review articles, as this reciprocal engagement supports the academic community and upholds the standards of the publication.


Right to refuse and rejection
Abstaining from the evaluation of a manuscript due to time constraints or personal circumstances is essential to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process. For instance, a reviewer who lacks the necessary expertise to adequately assess a research article should decline the review invitation. Reviewers are also expected to refrain from participating in the evaluation process when conflicts of interest may arise. In cases where a reviewer is asked to assess a manuscript they have previously reviewed, they should disclose their prior involvement to the editor, unless explicitly requested to conduct a re-evaluation.

Double-Blind peer-review
The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers should abstain from assessing manuscripts for which they have previously provided written feedback in an earlier version. If a reviewer becomes aware of the identity of the author or any co-author, they are ethically obligated to recuse themselves from the review process. Additionally, reviewers are responsible for avoiding any actions—whether through writing, verbal communication, or behavior—that could reveal their identity to the author(s).

No biases
Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly, and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.

Confidentiality
Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process. They should treat all manuscripts as confidential unless explicitly informed otherwise. Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the journal editor and are prohibited from sharing any information from the manuscript with third parties. If a reviewer suspects misconduct or unethical behavior, they should report their concerns confidentially to the editor and refrain from disclosing these concerns to other individuals or departments until an official determination is made.

Precision
To assess the article and make recommendations to the author (authors), reviewers should always know that the assessment influences the publishing process. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries. Reviewers should clearly define and adequately support their scientific evaluations by providing sufficient details and relevant information to enable the editor to justify their recommendations to the author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing the author, and on the other hand, very sharp assessments in-person discussion with the editor.

Punctuality
Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments and reviews promptly. If a reviewer is unable to complete the task by the specified deadline (maximum of one month), they should contact the editor to request an extension or to facilitate the selection of an alternative reviewer.


4. Research Ethics, Animal Treatment and Dual-Use
    Articles will be accepted based on scientific merit and only if they are considered ethically sound in the judgment of the editors. Referees are asked to express any ethical concerns regarding human studies, potential risk of misuse or maltreatment of animals, and conservation or environmental issues.

4-1. Human Subjects
    For experiments involving human subjects, the committee approving the experiments should be identified, along with all relevant project or license numbers. The research must be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors should confirm that informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their representatives, or explain why this was not done. Normally, we require permission to share datasets and associated metadata with reviewers in a confidential manner. However, if this is not possible, please consult the editorial office—in some cases, metadata alone may be sufficient for reviewers to assess a paper. We recognize three different scenarios for human data:

1. The simplest case is when the dataset has already been published by another research group and is available for download. In this case, all that is needed is a clear statement explaining how the data can be accessed.
2. The dataset has been used for several publications, but it is held by a third party (e.g., NIH), which only provides access following a very strict protocol. It is necessary to apply to the dataset owner to gain access to it. If this is not permitted, contact the editorial office.
3. The dataset is entirely new but contains sensitive information, and its access is therefore restricted in compliance with international or national laws. This represents the most challenging case. The data owners must be clearly identified by the authors, and we would generally expect them to be a national or international agency, institution, or consortium with which the authors are affiliated. An official responsible for data access must provide a statement explaining why the data cannot be shared with reviewers.

    For published papers, if data are restricted (e.g., for ethical or legal reasons), they should be made available to readers upon request to a Data Access Committee or Ethics Committee. Authors should specify the reason for the restriction (e.g., identifiable patient data), provide the name of the Data Access Committee or Ethics Committee, and include contact details for the point of contact. Researchers undertaking cross-cultural behavioral studies should follow best-practice guidelines and include clear details within the paper where relevant. Human articles must clearly specify the sample and context in which the study was done in the title or abstract (for example, geographical location, ethnicity of population, etc.).

4-2. Animal Subjects
    All research involving animals should be conducted with a high regard for animal welfare. Authors must provide details about the animals used in their study, including welfare standards (such as, but not limited to, species, number, sex, age, weight, housing conditions, welfare measures, animal training, and the fate of the animals at the end of the experiment). Additionally, relevant steps taken to minimize suffering should be clearly described. These details must be included in the Methods section of the article.
    Authors are expected to comply with the 'Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments' (ARRIVE) guidelines. These improvements raise the standards of reporting, ensuring that data from animal experiments can be thoroughly scrutinized and utilized. Relevant information should be included in the appropriate section of the article, as specified in the ARRIVE guidelines.
    All research involving animals must be reviewed and approved by an ethics committee before the study begins and must be conducted in compliance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations. A statement identifying the institutional or licensing committee that approved the experiments (including the approval or license number(s)) must be included in the ethics statement within the submission system and in the article. If the study is exempt from ethics approval, authors must provide the reasons for the exemption. Additionally, the procedures used must be clearly described.
    Any interaction with the animals that might cause them to change their typical behavior must get full ethical approval, both from the institution where the work was conducted and from the researcher's home institution. Permission is also required for studies where food or apparatus are provided. Additionally, any possible adverse consequences of the work for ecosystems, populations, or individual organisms must be carefully weighed against the possible gains in knowledge and its practical applications.
    Research relating to animal behavior and fieldwork studies should follow the advice provided by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) / Ethical Animal Research and Teaching: Guidelines for the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals in behavioural research and teaching, ASAB Ethical Committee/ABS Animal Care Committee (Animal Behaviour, 2023, Vol. 195, pp. I-XI). 
   The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) reserves the right to ask authors for all ethical documentation related to their study and to contact the authors’ institution for more information. 

4-3. Dual Use and Biosecurity
    The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) evaluates potential dual-use concerns on a case-by-case basis. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines this as:
Dual-use research of concern (DURC) describes research that is intended to provide a clear benefit, but which could easily be misapplied to do harm. It usually refers to work in the life sciences, but the principles are also applicable to other fields including engineering and information technology. It encompasses everything from information to specific products that have the potential to create negative consequences for health and safety, agriculture, the environment or national security.
    Authors should highlight the potential risk of misuse in their cover letter. This will be assessed alongside the technical review.
    Authors who use DNA from commercial DNA providers should get their DNA from a company that screens against misuse. They should choose a provider which is a member of the International Gene Synthesis Consortium (IGSC), and they should disclose the name of the company they purchased the DNA to the editors.

Other ethical issues
    We endorse the guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology by not publishing work resulting from unethically sourced Burmese amber and where fossil samples (i.e., the “data”) are not publicly available. Upon submission of a manuscript, we expect authors to provide evidence that the data are permanently curated in an accessible collection, including specimen number(s).

5. Informed Consent
All participants in human subjects research have the right to privacy, which must not be violated without their informed consent. Identifying information, such as names, initials, and similar details, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participants (or their parent or legal guardian) have provided written informed consent for publication. In such cases, informed consent requires that the identifiable participant be shown the manuscript and that consent be obtained prior to publication. Authors should inform participants whether any potentially identifiable material may be accessible via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Participants’ consent should be obtained in writing and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, in accordance with applicable laws and local regulations.
    All studies involving human participants must obtain informed consent from participants prior to their involvement in the research. Informed consent ensures that participants are fully aware of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, and that they voluntarily agree to participate. Authors must provide a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants. If consent was not required (e.g., for anonymized data), authors must justify this exemption and provide evidence that the study posed no risk to participants.
Example Statement:
"Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. Participants were informed of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time without penalty."

5-1. Exemption from Informed Consent
In cases where informed consent was not required (e.g., for studies using anonymized data or publicly available datasets), authors must provide a clear justification for this exemption. The justification must include:
- A description of why consent was not required.
- Evidence that the study posed no risk to participants.
- Confirmation that the data were anonymized and cannot be traced back to individual participants.
Example Justification:
"Informed consent was not required for this study as it involved the analysis of anonymized data from a publicly available dataset. The data were fully anonymized, and no identifiable information was accessible to the researchers. The study posed no risk to participants, as no personal or sensitive information was collected or analyzed."
   Authors must retain documentation of informed consent (e.g., signed consent forms) and provide it to the journal upon request. For studies exempt from consent, authors must provide documentation of the anonymization process or the public availability of the data.
    For studies involving vulnerable populations (e.g., children, individuals with cognitive impairments, or prisoners), additional safeguards must be in place to ensure informed consent is obtained appropriately. Authors must describe these safeguards in the manuscript.
All research involving human participants must comply with international ethical guidelines, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations. Authors must confirm compliance in their manuscript.

5-2. Manuscript Submission Requirements
During submission, authors must:
- Include the informed consent statement or exemption justification in the manuscript.
- Upload documentation of informed consent or anonymization (if applicable) as part of the supplementary materials.
- Provide contact information for the corresponding author in case the editorial team requires further clarification.
    Failure to provide adequate documentation of informed consent or a valid justification for exemption may result in the manuscript being rejected or returned for further clarification.
    This policy ensures that the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) upholds the highest ethical standards in research involving human participants, protecting their rights and welfare while maintaining the integrity of the published research. For further clarification, authors may refer to the journal’s Instructions for Authors or contact the editorial office.

6. Policy on Institutional/Regional Review Board (IRB) Approval for Research Involving Human Participants
The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research involving human participants. This policy outlines the requirements and procedures for obtaining and documenting Institutional or Regional Review Board (IRB) approval, ensuring compliance with international ethical guidelines, and protecting the rights and welfare of participants.
   All research involving human participants submitted to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) must obtain approval from an appropriate Institutional or Regional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent ethics committee. This requirement applies to studies that involve direct interaction with participants, such as surveys, interviews, or experiments, as well as studies using identifiable human data. Research involving human participants must adhere to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and other relevant international guidelines. Authors must ensure that their study design and procedures prioritize participant safety, privacy, and informed consent. For studies that qualify for exemption from IRB review under applicable regulations, authors must provide a clear explanation of the exemption criteria and confirm that the research adheres to ethical standards despite the exemption.
    Studies conducted without prior IRB approval (e.g., retrospective analyses) must seek retrospective approval or exemption from an IRB or ethics committee before submission to the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ). Even for studies that involve human participants indirectly (e.g., surveys, interviews, or observational studies), ethical oversight and IRB approval are mandatory to ensure participant protection.
    During submission, authors must upload a copy of the IRB approval letter or exemption documentation as part of the supplementary materials. Failure to provide this documentation may result in the manuscript being rejected or returned for further clarification. The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) adheres to international standards for ethical research, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines and the Common Rule for federally funded research. Authors from countries without formal IRB systems must seek approval from an equivalent ethical review body. Authors are encouraged to consult the Instructions for Authors of the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) for detailed submission guidelines and ethical requirements. For studies involving vulnerable populations (e.g., children, prisoners, or indigenous communities), additional ethical considerations and documentation may be required. Authors must include the following information in their manuscript:

- The name of the approving IRB or ethics committee.
- The approval number or reference.
- The date of approval.
- A statement confirming that the study was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines.

7. Plagiarism Policy
The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We accept all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism, and in case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to our attention accompanied by convincing evidence, we will act based on the flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE.
   The Editorial Boards of the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) take the necessary measures to examine the incoming articles on their originality, reliability of contained information, and correct use of citations. The Editorial Board of the journal acknowledges that plagiarism is unacceptable and therefore establishes the following policies that state-specific actions (penalties) if plagiarism is identified in a manuscript submitted for publication in the journal. Authors should ensure that they submit only entirely original works. If they have used the work and/or statements of others, this must be appropriately cited or referenced. Plagiarism in any form, including quotations or paraphrasing of substantial parts of another’s article (without attribution), “passing off” another’s article as the author’s own, or claiming results from research conducted by others, constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts that are compilations of previously published materials of other authors (without their own creative and authoring interpretation) are not accepted for publication. It is unacceptable to use “unfair” text borrowing and assigning research results not belonging to the authors of the submitted manuscript. The authors must ensure that the submitted manuscript:

- describes completely the original work.
- is not plagiarism.
- has not been published before in any language.
- the information used or words from other publications are appropriately indicated by reference or indicated in the text.

    Existing copyright laws and conventions must be observed. Materials protected by copyright (for example, tables, figures, or large quotations) should only be reproduced with the permission of their owner. The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) takes responsibility for assisting the scientific community in all aspects of publication ethics policy, particularly in the case of multiple submissions/publications and plagiarism. The editors reserve the right to check the received manuscripts for plagiarism. The manuscript submitted to the journal must have a similarity level of less than 10%. Similarity per each detected reference also must be a maximum of 1%. The textual similarity in the amount of more than 10% is unacceptable.

8. The Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
All manuscripts must be free of any form of plagiarism. All authors are advised to use plagiarism detection software to check similarity. Editors check the plagiarism detection of the manuscripts in this journal using Grammarly detection software (www.grammarly.com) and using iThenticate. The journal will immediately reject articles leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. The journal adheres to international practices to prevent plagiarism. Thus, all authors who submit their manuscripts to the journal must check that their academic work respects the copyrights of other scholars and avoid any plagiarism. Once the manuscript is submitted to the journal, the editorial board will assign a group of anti-plagiarism members to check the manuscript through various tools. If proof of plagiarism is found, the manuscript will be rejected immediately, and the Editorial Board will communicate with the author to demand an explanation and the amendment of the plagiarized content. If the author does not respond within a reasonable length of time or does not make the necessary adjustments, they will not be able to submit manuscripts to the journal for a period of five (5) years. If the Editorial Board has reason to believe that the manuscript was not drafted or researched ethically, the journal’s implemented code of ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics [Code of Conduct and Best Practices Guidelines for Journals Editors]) will be reviewed and acted upon accordingly.

Definition of Plagiarism:
"Plagiarism is the use of others’ published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism are to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic). Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and should be addressed as such. Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one’s own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably, for this reason, self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals. If journals have developed a policy on this matter, it should be clearly stated for authors." (WAME, 2020). Direct plagiarism is the plagiarism of the text. Mosaic plagiarism is the borrowing of ideas and opinions from a source and a few verbatim words or phrases without crediting the author. Plagiarism is committed when one author uses another’s work (typically the work of another author) without permission, credit, or acknowledgment. Plagiarism takes different forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. Authors can adhere to the following steps to report plagiarism:

• Inform the editor of the journal where the plagiarized article is published.
• Send original and plagiarized articles with plagiarized parts highlighted.
• If evidence of plagiarism is convincing, the editor should arrange for a disciplinary meeting.
• The editor of the journal where the plagiarized article was published should communicate with the editor of the journal containing the original article to rectify the matter.
• The plagiarist should be asked to explain.
• In case of nonresponse in the stipulated time or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article should be permanently retracted.
• The author should be blacklisted and debarred from submitting an article to a particular journal for at least 5 years.
• The head of the institution concerned has to be notified.

• The most easily identifiable plagiarism is that of repeated content when an author copies another author’s work by reciting words, sentences, or paragraphs without citing sources. This plagiarism model can be easily identified by our plagiarism checker software.
• The second type of plagiarism occurs when an author reproduces a substantial part of another writer’s work, without citing him/her. The term "reproducing substance" here can be understood as copying another’s ideas, both in terms of quantity and quality, which potentially eliminates the original author’s rights, in the context of intellectual property.
• The third type of plagiarism is when an author takes ideas, words, or phrases in paraphrased sentences or paragraphs, without citing the source. This type of plagiarism often cannot be checked through plagiarism software, as it is idea-based. Yet, this practice becomes unethical when the author does not cite, nor acknowledge the source from the original writer.

• Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one’s original work (see prior section).
• Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, the inclusion of individuals as authors who have not contributed to the work published, or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
• Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
• Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
• Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct, and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation. This includes qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancements.

10. Responses to Possible Misconduct
A committee consisting of the editor-in-chief and editorial board members, as determined by the editor-in-chief, who has specific expertise in the area being investigated, will investigate misconduct allegations. The suitable actions were taken based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) follows the policies and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and abides by its Code of Conduct in dealing with potential cases of misconduct.

11. Pre-Publication Corrections
    If you are the author of an article that has been submitted but not yet published and you wish to request a correction, please use the following contacts to alert the journal Staff: mljgoums.ac.ir.

12. Post-Publication Correction Policy
    Sometimes, after an article has been submitted or published, it may be necessary to make a change to the Author’s Original Manuscript (AOM), Accepted Manuscript (AM), or final Version of Record (VOR).  This change will be made after careful consideration by the journal’s editorial team, with support from the journal Staff to make sure any necessary changes are made in accordance with both the journal's publishing policies and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
        Each article published by the Journal constitutes the Version of Record (VoR): the final, definitive, and citable version in the scholarly record. The VoR includes:
1. The article was revised and accepted following peer review, in its final form, including the abstract, text, references, bibliography, and all accompanying tables, illustrations, and data.
2. Any supplemental material.
    Recognizing a published article as the Version of Record (VoR) helps to provide further assurance that it is accurate, complete, and citable. According to the STM Association guidelines, “Articles that have been published as the version-of-record should remain extant, exact, and unaltered to the maximum extent possible.” (STM Guidelines on Preservation of the Objective Record of Science). Therefore, there are strict circumstances under which changes can be made post-publication. Wherever possible, it is our policy to maintain the integrity of the VoR in accordance with STM Association guidelines.
    Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or the reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure a consensus was reached effectively between all listed co-authors prior to requesting any corrections to an article.
    If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction is necessary for your article, please contact the journal Staff, the Editor-in-Chief, the Executive Manager, or use our online Contact Us form.
    In the event that an article has been published in the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ), and an error or potential error is discovered, the error should be reported to the journal Staff for review and, if appropriate, correction.
    Errors that have an impact on the environment or affect the living organisms, and patient safety, including errors in dosages or treatment regimens, are considered extremely urgent and are given priority handling. If you believe you have noticed an error in an article that could affect the living organisms or patient safety, contact the Editor-in-Chief or the Executive Manager to notify the Staff. All other post-publication correction requests should follow the guidance in the appropriate section below.
Post-publication correction requests that are approved for processing will be handled promptly by the journal Staff. Correction requests require varying approval processes and so the Staff cannot provide an expected-ready date for publication of the corrected article.
    Potential errors in the journal articles may be reported to the journal Staff by anyone. However, once reported, the journal Staff will communicate with the corresponding author of the article and the first author. The journal Staff cannot communicate about post-publication correction requests with third party requesters. The original requester, if not the corresponding or first author, will receive a notification when the correction request is approved for processing or declined.
    The journal reserves the right to determine whether a retraction is warranted based on the significance and seriousness of the reported error.

12-1. Post-publication notices to ensure the accuracy of the scholarly record
    Rarely, it may be necessary for the Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) to publish corrections to, or retractions of, articles published in this journal, so as to maintain the integrity of the academic record. In line with the journal’s policy, corrections to, or retractions of, published articles will be made by publishing a Correction or a Retraction note bidirectionally linked to the original article. Any alterations to the original article will be described in the note. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.
    Aside from cases where a minor error is concerned, any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will be permanently linked to the original article. These changes can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, and in rare circumstances, a Removal. The purpose of linking post-publication notices to the original article is to provide transparency around any changes and to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Note that all post-publication notices are free to access from the point of publication.
    Correction requests to articles published in the journal should be submitted using our online Contact Us form or by email (mljgoums.ac.ir). The journal Staff must receive the following information to process the correction request:

• Article title.
• Corresponding author name (if the submitter is not the corresponding author).
• Year of publication.
• Article DOI or URL to the article on the website.
• Detailed description of the correction.
• Attachment illustrating the correction (for example, a PDF of the final article with the correction marked).
• A brief explanation of how the error occurred and the significance of the error.

• Missing the author’s full name.
• Missing the author’s contact email address.
• Explanation of missing author’s contributions to the manuscript (e.g., Conception and design; Collection and assembly of data; Data analysis and interpretation; Manuscript writing; Final approval of the manuscript; Accountable for all aspects of the work).
• Confirmation that the missing author has updated their Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure information.

• Those who correct an error of fact.
• Adding an omitted author to or removing an erroneously included author from the byline.
• An affiliation that was incorrect at the time of submission.
• Errors in data.
• Typographical errors that affect meaning or introduce confusion.

• Contravene Journal style.
• Correct a misspelling.
• Correct a punctuation error.
• Correct a formatting error or adjust formatting.
• Do not affect the meaning of the text, or if the original wording does not introduce confusion.

    No corrections will be made to update information that was correct at the time of submission. For example, affiliations will not be updated to reflect changes that occurred after submission, and updates to data or findings will not be considered after publication.

12-2. Correction notice
    Corrections may be issued for errors in published articles that do not affect the overall conclusions of the work. These can include minor errors, such as typographical mistakes or author name corrections. A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission that may impact the interpretation of the article, while the scholarly integrity and original findings remain intact. Changes to published articles that affect the interpretation and conclusion of the article, but do not fully invalidate the article, will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of a Correction that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. For authors who’ve changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please contact the journal office via mljgoums.ac.ir.
    A Correction notice, where possible, should always be written and approved by all authors of the original article. On very rare occasions, where there is a need to correct an error made in the publication process, the journal may be required to issue a correction without the authors’ direct input. However, should this occur, the journal will make its best efforts to notify the authors.
       Authors, readers, or organizations who become aware of errors or ethical issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the journal office in the first instance via the contact details available on the journal website. All reports will be considered by the Editors; additional expert advice may be sought when deciding on the most appropriate course of action. The Journal Office provides support to the Editor and the Editorial Board in addressing publication ethics issues in a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)-compliant manner.
    Authors or readers can report errors. After evaluation, a correction notice will be published online and linked to the original article. It should be noted that the correction requests may be subject to full review, and if queries are raised, you may be expected to supply further information before the correction is approved.
The Editor-in-Chief distinguishes between major and minor errors. For correction notices, major errors or omissions are considered changes that impact the interpretation of the article, but the overall scholarly integrity remains intact. Minor errors are considered errors or omissions that do not impact the reliability of, or the readers’ understanding of, the interpretation of the article.
- Major errors are always accompanied by a separate correction notice. The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the Version of Record (VR). Under these circumstances, the journal will:

• Correct the online article.
• Issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version.
• Add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice.
• Paginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal.
• Make the correction notice free to view.

• Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article should be raised via email to the Editor or via the online Contact Us form.

• There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or image manipulation) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification (e.g., cases of redundant or duplicate publication).
• The research constitutes plagiarism.
• The Editor no longer has confidence in the validity or integrity of the article.
• There is evidence or concern regarding the sale of authorship.
• Citation manipulation is evident within the published paper
• There is evidence of compromised peer review or systematic manipulation.
• There is evidence of unethical research, or there is evidence of a breach of editorial policies.
• The authors have deliberately submitted inaccurate or fraudulent information, or breached a warranty provided in the Author Publishing Agreement (APA).

• Add a “retracted” watermark to the published Version of Record (VR) of the article.
• Issue a separate retraction statement, titled ‘Retraction: [article title]’, that will be linked to the retracted article on the journal’s website.
• Paginate and make available the retraction statement in the online issue of the journal.

• There is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors, but the nature of the concerns warrants notifying the readers.
• There are well-founded concerns that the findings are unreliable or that misconduct may have occurred, but there is limited cooperation from the authors’ institution(s) in investigating the concerns raised.
• There is an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication that has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
• An investigation is underway, but a resolution will not be available for a considerable time, and the nature of the concerns warrant notifying the readers.

• The article contains content that could pose a serious risk of harm if acted upon or followed.
• The article contains content, which violates the rights to privacy of a study participant.
• The article is defamatory or infringes other legal rights.
• An article is subject to a court order.

In the case of an article being removed from the journal’s website, a removal notice will be issued in its place.

12-6. Updates and scholarly discussion on published articles
Addenda
An addendum is a notification of an addition of information to an article. Addenda do not contradict the original publication and are not used to fix errors (for which a Correction notice will be published), but if the author needs to update or add some key information then, this can be published as an addendum. Addenda may be peer reviewed, according to journal policy, and are normally subject to oversight by the Editors of the journal. All addenda are electronically linked to the published article to which they relate.

Comment (including response and rejoinder correspondence)
Comments are short articles, which outline an observation on a published article. In cases where a comment on a published article is submitted to the journal editor, it may be subject to peer review. The comment will be shared with the authors of the published article, who are invited to submit a response.
This author's response again may be subject to peer review, and will be shared with the commentator, who may be invited to submit a rejoinder. The rejoinder may be subject to peer review and shared with the authors of the published article. No further correspondence will be considered for publication. The Editor-in-Chief may decide to reject correspondence at any point before the comment, response, and rejoinder are finalized. All published comments, responses, and rejoinders are linked to the published article to which they relate.

Pop-up notifications
If deemed necessary by the Publishing Ethics and Integrity team of the editorial board, a pop-up notification may be temporarily added to the online version of an article to inform readers that an article is under investigation. This is not a permanent note (unlike an Expression of Concern, Correction, or Retraction notice), but is to indicate an investigation is in progress. It should be noted that these are not added to every article under investigation.
 
13. Appeals and Complaints
13-1. Appeal against a rejection
If you wish to ask the Editor or Editorial Board to reconsider a rejection of a manuscript, you should, in the first instance, contact the Editor through the instructions on the journal website. These are considered appeals, which, by policy, must take second place to the normal workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. Final decisions on appeals will be made by the Editorial Board Member handling the paper or the Editor. In general, an appeal against a rejection decision on a manuscript will only be considered if:
- the authors can demonstrate that an error that determined the final decision has been made -by a referee or the Editors- during the review
or
- if important additional data can be provided
or
- if a convincing case of bias in the process can be demonstrated.
   Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a formal letter of appeal to the journal by contacting the journal editorial office. Include the manuscript tracking number in the email subject line and the appeal letter. If appeals are successful, then authors will be given instructions on how to proceed. If an appeal merits further consideration, the Editor may send the authors' response and the revised paper out for further peer review.

13-2. Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal the decision on their manuscript may do so by sending an email to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of notification of the decision. In such cases, a letter detailing the reasons for the appeal, as well as a full response to any reviewers' comments, if relevant, should be provided to the Editor-in-Chief. If appropriate, the manuscript will be sent to another reviewer who has not previously evaluated the manuscript. The reviewers' comments, along with any subsequent editorial communications, will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision will be final. Complaints about the peer review processes or about publication ethics will, in the first instance, be handled by the Editor-in-Chief. If the Editor is the subject of the complaint, please approach the editorial and publishing management team by email to mljgoums.ac.ir. 
- For complaints about processes, such as time taken for review, the Editor will review and respond to the complainant's concerns. This feedback will be provided to relevant stakeholders to guide improvements to processes and procedures.
- For complaints about publication ethics or scientific content, the Editor will follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor may request advice from the editorial board on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor then decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant.
If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal's editorial and publishing management team for investigation. If no publishing contact is identified send the query to mljgoums.ac.ir.

14. Copyright and License
The Medical Laboratory Journal (MLJ) is a fully open-access journal, which means that all articles are available on the Web to all users immediately upon publication. All articles are published under a Creative Commons License. Therefore, the copyright of articles accepted for publication rests with the author(s). Author(s) retain copyright to their work without restrictions. The author(s) has complete control over the work (e.g., retains the right to reuse, distribute, republish, etc.). All content of the Journal is published with open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which  allows users to:

• Data deposition supports the preservation of data long-term.
• Depositing data in a repository that mints a permanent identifier, such as a DOI, allows authors and others to cite the data set, allowing researchers to get appropriate credit for their work.
• Sharing data can lead to re-use and discovery, with greater opportunities for carrying out meta-analyses and the extraction of new knowledge.
• Sharing data publicly improves the robustness of the research process, supporting validation, research transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of results. This can, in turn, advance discovery and knowledge.
• Wider public availability of research data supports the translation of research into practice. 

• Basic – The journal encourages authors to share and make data open, where this does not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns. Authors are further encouraged to cite data and provide a data availability statement.
• Share upon reasonable request – Authors agree to make their data available upon reasonable request. It is up to the author to determine whether a request is reasonable.
• Publicly available – Authors make their data freely available to the public, under a license of their choice.
• Open data – Authors must make their data freely available to the public, under a license allowing re-use by any third party for any lawful purpose. Data shall be findable and fully accessible.
• Open and fully FAIR (Findable, accessible, interoperable, and re-usable) – Authors must make their data freely available to the public, under a license allowing re-use by any third party for any lawful purpose. Additionally, data shall meet the FAIR standards as established in the relevant subject area.

17. Data Citation
Data should be cited in the same way as articles, books, and web citations, and authors are required to include data citations as part of their reference list. Data citation is appropriate for data held within institutional, subject-focused, or more general data repositories. It is not intended to take the place of community standards, such as in-line citation of GenBank accession codes. When citing or making claims based on data, authors must refer to the data at the relevant place in the manuscript text and also provide a formal citation in the reference list. The journal follows the format proposed by the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles:
Authors; Year; Dataset title; Data repository or archive; Version (if any); Persistent identifier (e.g., DOI)”.

18. Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing
Where authors use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, they should only employ these technologies to improve readability and language. The application of AI technology must be accompanied by human oversight and control. Authors should carefully review and edit the results because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as authors or co-authors, nor should they be cited as an author.  Authorship implies tasks and responsibilities that are uniquely attributed to and performed by humans. Authors should disclose their use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by following the instructions provided. A statement acknowledging this use will appear in the published article. It is essential to recognize that authors remain ultimately responsible and accountable for the content of their articles.
Disclosure instructions:
Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript in the core manuscript file, before the References list. The statement should be placed in a new section entitled ‘Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process’.
Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.
This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references, etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

Please send questions, concerns, or comments to the journal office at mljgoums.ac.ir.