PEER REVIEW POLICY

Every manuscript undergoes a peer-evaluation process that utilizes the Double-Blind Review System. By keeping the authors anonymous, we eliminate any possible biases that reviewers might have due to factors such as the author's nationality or prior contentious publications. Furthermore, to uphold our commitment to academic integrity, we evaluate submissions from well-known individuals based solely on the quality of the content, treating the authors' prominence as a secondary consideration.

Every manuscript undergoes scrutiny for plagiarism, whether it’s duplicate or not, in accordance with the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human rights, and Informed Consent

ARSSMS is poised to become a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, and consequently, our publishing procedures align with the standards set by COPE.

All authors engaged in the creation of any work intended for publication must disclose any financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal conflicts of interest, as well as any conflicts of interest related to their co-authors.

An important note:

Authors must disclose any participation they have had in the creation of health interventions. If human or animal participants were involved in the creation of the submitted materials, a section indicating consent from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (or a declaration of exemption) should be included. It is advisable to present this information within the ‘methods’ segment of the work. In cases where research has been undertaken by pertinent industry bodies, authors are encouraged to consult with an independent ethics committee for assistance, and to cite their recommendation within the ‘methods’ section of the work.

Researchers should, whenever feasible, acquire participants' agreement for their involvement in studies and notify them of their option to decline participation. In cases where it is not possible to secure such consent and information, as seen in the analysis of Twitter posts, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is required, and the grounds for this exemption according to Eisenach & Till (2001) must be specified.