Editorial Policies

1.  Authorship

All listed authors must qualify as such, as defined in our authorship guidelines, which have been developed from the ICMJE definitions. All authors must have given permission to be listed on the submitted paper.

It is important that the correct list of authors is attributed to an article from the start of the submission process. Author lists with the incorrect information can result in academic or financial implications, whilst also providing the reader with the wrong information on where the responsibility and accountability for the published work should lie.

All authors listed on a submission must have given prior approval to have their name attributed to the file(s) that are being submitted and agree to the publication. The corresponding author has the responsibility to ensure that all authors qualify for, and have agreed to, authorship of the submission. They are also responsible for informing all co-authors of relevant editorial information during the review process.

Our recommendations are based on the ICMJE Authorship Criteria. Authors must have:

  • 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.

2.  Acknowledgments

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a university dean or department head/chair who provided only general support.

2.1   Third-party submissions

Where an individual who is not listed as an author submits a manuscript on behalf of the author(s), a statement must be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript and in the accompanying cover letter. The statements must:

  • Disclose this type of editorial assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input
  • Identify any entities that paid for this assistance
  • Confirm that the listed authors have authorized the submission of their manuscript via third party and approved any statements or declarations, e.g. conflicting interests, funding, etc.

Where appropriate, FUJD reserves the right to deny consideration to manuscripts submitted by a third party rather than by the authors themselves.

2.2    Writing assistance

Individuals who provided writing assistance, e.g. from a specialist communications company, do not qualify as authors and so should be included in the Acknowledgements section. Authors must disclose any writing assistance – including the individual’s name, company and level of input – and identify the entity that paid for this assistance.

It is not necessary to disclose the use of language polishing services.

Any acknowledgments should appear first at the end of your article prior to your Declaration of Conflicting Interests (if applicable), any notes and your References.

3.  Funding Acknowledgements

All research articles should have a funding acknowledgment statement included in the manuscript in the form of a sentence under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’ directly after your Acknowledgements and Declaration of Conflicting Interests, if applicable, and prior to any Notes and your References. The funding agency should be written out in full, followed by the grant number in square brackets, see following example (the text in bold is mandatory, unless specified otherwise by the journal):

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Medical Research Council [grant number xxx].

Multiple grant numbers should be separated by comma and space. Where the research was supported by more than one agency, the different agencies should be separated by semi-colon, with “and” before the final funder. Thus:

This work was supported by the Trust [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]; the Natural Environment Research Council [grant number zzzz]; and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number aaaa].

In some cases, research is not funded by a specific project grant, but rather from the block grant and other resources available to a university, college or other research institution. Where no specific funding has been provided for the research, we ask that corresponding authors use the following sentence:

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Please include this information under a separate heading entitled ‘Funding’ directly after any Acknowledgements and Declaration of Conflicting Interests (if applicable), and prior to any Notes and your References.

Important note: If you have any concerns that the provision of this information may compromise your anonymity dependent on the peer review policy of this journal outlined above, you can withhold this information until you submit your final accepted manuscript.

4.  ORCID

The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID).  Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not affect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.

The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

5.  Clinical Trial Registration

The ICMJE uses the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a clinical trial, which is "any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes". This definition includes phase I to IV trials. The ICMJE defines health-related interventions as "any intervention used to modify a biomedical or health-related outcome" and health-related outcomes as "any biomedical or health-related measures obtained in patients or participants". Authors who are unsure whether their trial needs registering should consult the ICMJE FAQs for further information.

All interventional trials must be registered at or before enrollment of the first participant. Trial registration records must be available in a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, in ClinicalTrials.gov, or in any publicly accessible database that meets the minimum 24-item trial registration dataset (Click Here) .

The trial number must be clearly indicated in the abstract and methods section of the manuscript. Trials with retrospective registration or with registration in a database that is not publicly accessible cannot be considered.

6.  Ethics and Consent

6.1  Ethics approval

Research involving human participants, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to the Editor on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, the Editor may contact the ethics committee for further information.

6.2  Retrospective ethics approval

If a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained, and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor's discretion.

6.3  New clinical tools and procedures

Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

6.4  Consent to participate

For all research involving human participants, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example, unconscious patients) where there is the potential for coercion (for example prisoners) or where consent may not have been fully informed, manuscripts will be considered at the editor’s discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny. Consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/ clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained. Documentary evidence of consent must be supplied if requested.

7.  Consent for Publication

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to an individual person, written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 18). The consent must be for publication of their details under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (such that they will be freely available on the internet). If the person has died, consent for publication must be obtained from their next of kin. The manuscript must include a statement that written informed consent for publication was obtained.

Authors can use the FUJD consent form to obtain consent for publication, or a consent form from their own institution or region if appropriate. The consent form must state that the details/images/videos will be freely available on the internet and may be seen by the general public. The consent form must be made available to the Editor if requested and will be treated confidentially.

In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor.

8.  Conflict of Interest

FUJD requires a declaration of conflicting interests from all authors in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘conflict of interests’ section at the end of the manuscript after any acknowledgments and prior to the references. If no conflict exists, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest’ For guidance on conflict of interest statements, please see the ICMJE recommendations.

8.1  What constitutes a conflict of interest?

Conflict of interests may be financial or non-financial. A conflict of interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by, or maybe perceived to be influenced by, their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial conflict of interests but also any non-financial conflict of interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the manuscript.

8.2  Financial conflict of interests

Financial conflict of interests includes (but are not limited to):

  • Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
  • Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
  • Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.
  • Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

8.3  Non-financial conflict of interests

Non-financial conflict of interests includes (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a conflict of interest, please contact info.fujd@fui.edu.pk

9.  Copyright Policy

All the authors of submitted manuscripts to and published in the Foundation University Journal of Dentistry agree to transfer all copyright ownership of the manuscript to the Foundation University Journal of Dentistry. After publication, such manuscripts can only be re-produced after permission from the editorial board and the publisher.

All authors are required to sign the copyright policy statement which is found on the submission form and send it along with the manuscript.

In case the manuscript is rejected, the copyright transfers back to the authors.

Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.

9.1  Permission is required for:

  • Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
  • Substantial extracts from anyone’s' works or a series of works.
  • Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
  • Photographs for which you do not hold the copyright.

9.2  Permission is not required for:

  • Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
  • Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
  • Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.

In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. FUJD cannot publish material from other publications without permission.

The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.

10.  Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to FUJD initially undergo internal peer review. A manuscript not found suitable for publication as regards to the topic or poor writing is likely to be rejected on the internal peer review. After in-house peer review, the manuscript is sent for external peer reviews. This usually involves a review by two independent peer reviewers.

The journal follows a double-blind peer-review process where neither the author nor the reviewer gets to know the identity of each other. This is ensured by masking the separate front-page file to the reviewers having author details.

Where an editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume responsibility for overseeing peer review. Submissions felt to be suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review by appropriate independent experts identified by the Editor. Editors will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports and authors are sent these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers if they wish; however, whether or not to consider these reviewers is at the Editor's discretion. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses where possible, or information that will help the Editor to verify the identity of the reviewer (for example an ORCID or Scopus ID).

Authors may request the exclusion of individuals as peer reviewers, but they should explain the reasons in their cover letter on submission. Authors should not exclude too many individuals as this may hinder the peer review process. Please note that the Editor may choose to invite excluded peer reviewers.

Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in rejection of the manuscript and may lead to further investigation in line with our misconduct policy.

11.  Misconduct and Complaints

Foundation University Journal of Dentistry (FUJD) makes every effort to ensure the highest standards in publication ethics are upheld and takes all forms of misconduct seriously. FUJD will take all necessary action in accordance with COPE Guidelines, to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors should be aware of misconduct issues prior to submitting articles for publication. Examples of misconduct include (but are not limited to):

11.1  Plagiarism

This applies to data, images, words or ideas taken from any materials in electronic or print formats without sufficient attribution. This can include abstracts, seminar presentations, laboratory reports, thesis or dissertation, research proposals, computer programs, online posts, grey literature and unpublished or published manuscripts.

The use of any such material either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances and the source of content must always be cited.

FUJD uses Turnitin plagiarism detection software to screen all submitted manuscripts and will deal with cases of plagiarism according to COPE guidelines. Any manuscript found to contain plagiarized material will not be considered for publication.

11.2  Duplicate submission/publication

Authors are required to declare upon submission that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere, and as such the detection of a duplicate submission or publication is typically considered to be a deliberate act. This includes articles previously published in another language. For acceptable forms of secondary submissions or publications (e.g. an article translated into English), in accordance with ICMJE guidance, authors must seek permission from the publisher and copyright holder of the original article, and must inform the Editor of the receiving journal about the history of the original article. It must also be made clear to readers that the article is a translated version, with a citation provided to the original article.

FUJD will accept unpublished work from an author’s thesis; however, the thesis must be acknowledged as the source of the work and adequately cited within the manuscript. It is advised the submitted manuscript contains unique aspects not included in the thesis. If work from a thesis has already been published this will not be considered original work and will not be considered for publication. Please refer to COPE's guidelines for more details regarding the publication of theses.

If you have uploaded your manuscript to a non-commercial preprint server, you may still submit the manuscript to a FUJD. We do not consider posting on a preprint server to be duplicate publication and this will not jeopardize consideration for publication.

If you have posted your manuscript to a preprint server, we ask that, upon acceptance, you acknowledge that the article has been accepted for publication as follows:

“This article has been accepted for publication in [JOURNAL TITLE], published by Foundation University Islamabad.”

After publication please update your preprint, adding the following text to encourage others to read and cite the final published version of your article:

“This is an original manuscript of an article published by Foundation University Islamabad in [JOURNAL TITLE] on [date of publication], available online: https://doi.org/ 10.33897/[Article DOI].”

11.3  Text-recycling/self-plagiarism

Although authors are expected to refer to their own previously published work, in some cases the re-use of large proportions of previous work is considered unacceptable. Where this is unavoidable authors must be transparent about their previously published work by providing appropriate citations. Authors must also ensure that re-use is compliant with copyright policies. FUJD will deal with cases of text-recycling according to COPE guidelines.

11.4  Authorship

Authors are required to give an honest account of authorship, where each listed author meets the authorship criteria in order to provide transparency and credit to those who have substantially contributed to the work. However, where authors have deliberately not complied with this requirement it will considered a form of misconduct. Of particular concern are:

‘Ghost authorship’ - where an author(s) has substantially contributed to the work but has not been given credit. This also impacts transparency as any competing interests pertaining to a ‘ghost author’ will not be declared.

‘Gift authorship’- where a listed author(s) has not contributed substantially, or at all to the published work.

‘Authorship for sale’- where authors have ‘sold’ an author spot on a paper, or where a researcher has ‘bought’ an authorship spot on a paper.

FUJD will deal with authorship misconduct according to COPE guidelines. In some instances, FUJD may be required to defer cases to the author's institution(s) for adjudication.

11.5  Affiliation misrepresentation

Affiliations must be an accurate reflection of where the study was approved and/or supported and/or conducted. For non-research articles, the affiliation should be listed as the place the author(s) was based at the time of submission. Misrepresentation of affiliation is a form of misconduct and FUJD will deal with such cases by contacting all relevant institutions to assist with our investigation.

11.6  Undisclosed competing interests

A competing interest has the potential to influence or bias someone’s judgements or views. They arise when a personal judgement concerning a primary interest (such as patient welfare or research results) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Misconduct occurs when an author, editor or reviewer does not declare relevant competing interests, which can be perceived to influence their opinion of or assessment of a research or non-research article. Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves from any kind of involvement with submissions they have a competing interest against.

FUJD will not consider manuscripts that are suspected of having an undisclosed competing interest.

11.7  Image manipulation

Where deliberate action has been taken to inappropriately manipulate or fabricate an image. This is a serious form of misconduct as is designed to mislead others and damages the integrity of the scholarly record with wide-reaching and long-term consequences.

FUJD expects all images contained within manuscripts to be accurate and free from manipulation. Specific features within an image may not be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed or introduced without adequate notification of what the alteration is. Adjustments to the brightness, contrast or color balance of an image are acceptable if they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent information present in the original. Grouping images from different parts of gels, western blots or microscope images must be made explicit in the arrangement of the figure or in the text of the figure legend.

If the original, unedited images cannot be produced on request, acceptance of a manuscript or paper may be declined or retracted.

11.8  Data falsification/fabrication

Where deliberate action has been taken to inappropriately manipulate or fabricate data. This is considered a serious form of misconduct and is designed to mislead others and damages the integrity of the scholarly record with wide-reaching and long-term consequences.

When submitting a manuscript to FUJD, authors must ensure all data contained within their manuscript is accurate and correctly represents their work. To help assist FUJD with manuscript evaluation, authors are expected to retain all raw data represented in their manuscripts.

If the original data cannot be produced on request, acceptance of a manuscript or published paper may be declined or retracted.

11.9  Peer review manipulation

Where authors or agencies submitting on behalf of authors take deliberate steps to influence the peer review process in their favour, or where editors make decisions based on biased peer review reports. Where there is evidence to suggest that the integrity of the peer-review process has been compromised, necessary action will be taken to correct the scholarly record.

In very rare instances peer reviewers may appropriate the work they were assigned to review. FUJD recognizes the damage such actions would cause to the peer-review process. All peer reviewers at FUJD are advised to read and consider the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers before accepting to review a manuscript and expected to treat any article and associated materials received in the course of the review as confidential. Any reviewer found to have committed misconduct by appropriating the work of others will be permanently removed from the peer review database and reported to their institution.

11.10  Citation manipulation

Where authors excessively and inappropriately self-cite, or enter into prearrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other's work or where editors or reviewers coerce authors to cite papers from their own previously published papers, or from specific journals, without due justification as to why those papers are necessary to cite.

11.11  Unethical research

Where research fails to comply with the relevant and approved local, national, or international legislative and regulatory requirements or where researchers have not taken sufficient steps to protect the safety and privacy of human subjects, or the welfare of animals used in the research.

FUJD takes its role in ensuring all publications meet ethical requirements seriously. Manuscripts will not be considered for publication where evidence exists that a study was not suitably approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee. Similarly, submissions will not be considered where concerns are raised by the journal editors or peer reviewers over a lack of patient consent, improper patient identification protection or a lack of animal ethical approval.

11.12  “Ethics dumping”

Where researchers leading a study deliberately set up collaborations in regions where participant recruitment and study interventions can circumvent international standards of research ethics oversight.

11.13  Breaches in copyright/use of third -party material without permission

Where authors have included material, which is under copyright and have not obtained the appropriate permissions as instructed by the copyright holders.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or adequate, the author should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

12.  Correction, Retraction and Withdrawal

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to its final edited version. This will be done after careful consideration by the Editor who is also supported by FUJD staff to ensure any necessary changes are done in accordance with guidance from the COPE. Any necessary changes will be accompanied with a permanent post-publication notice which will be permanently linked to the original article.

In accordance with guidelines from the COPE, FUJD handles different kinds of error in the following ways:

  • Amendment
  • Correction article
  • Retraction article
  • Removal or Withdrawal

To minimize requests for post-publication edits:

  • Editors should ensure that the author(s) has been given an opportunity to sign off their final draft & metadata, prior to the files being sent to typesetting. It should be made clear that future edits will not be possible
  • Editors should also give the final draft & metadata a thorough read through prior to sending it to be typesetting to make sure that they are happy with the content
  • All articles will have had their PDF proofs checked by the author or editor prior to publication. This is a final chance to catch layout errors and minor editorial issues such as typos. This is not an opportunity for wider content editing

Please contact the Journal/Editorial Manager if you believe that an article needs correcting. We reserve the right to decide what constitutes a minor or major issue and whether an amendment or correction article is necessary.

12.1  Amendment

For very minor content or metadata issues, FUJD may directly amend the article (both PDF and HTML) if the error is reported very soon after publication (normally <48h) AND the publication has not yet been sent out for indexing.

In-line amendments are strictly limited to only obvious and small mistakes. Corrections relating to the scientific content or other major metadata issues (e.g. a change in authorship) will require a formal correction to be published. Should an in-line amendment be made then a note may also be added to the publication to alert readers to this fact.

To avoid multiple versions of the same publication being circulated, should a publication have already been sent out to indexing services then in-line edits will not be permitted.

12.2  Correction Article

After an article has been published it will immediately be available to the public. Shortly after publication we will also send the publication information and files to multiple indexes to aid this dissemination. Once this indexing process has begun (usually within a day or so of publication), all corrections must be released as a separate publication, linked to the original. This ensures that the integrity and transparency of the academic record is maintained.

A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission which can impact the interpretation of the article, but where the scholarly integrity of the article remains intact. Examples include mislabeling of a figure, missing information on funding or competing interests of the authors. FUJD utilizes two types of correction notice; a Corrigendum will typically be issued for errors introduced by the authors, whereas an Erratum is typically issued for errors introduced by the publisher.

12.3   Retraction Article

Retractions are used to remove a published paper from the scientific record. In accordance with the COPE guidance, retractions are used when:

  • Editors have clear evidence that the article’s findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant/duplicate publication)
  • Article publication constitutes plagiarism
  • The article reports unethical research

Retraction articles will be drafted and posted in the same way as correction articles and with the editors’ approval. The original article is watermarked as retracted and the title is amended with the prefix “Retracted article:”

FUJD recognizes the purpose of a retraction is to correct the literature and ensure the integrity of the publication record. They are not intended as a means of punishment for authors.

Retractions will not normally be issued to resolve authorship disputes. The preferred option in this situation is to issue a corrigendum. This is provided the authors can justify the change in authorship, and this usually requires the support of their respective institutions.

12.4  Removal or Withdrawal

A Removal notice will be issued in very rare circumstances where the problems cannot be addressed by a Retraction or Correction notice. Examples include where the content in the article is defamatory or infringes on other legal rights or is subject to a court order. In the rare case of an article being removed from FUJD Online, a removal notice will be issued in its place.

12.5  Exceptions

In some cases, legal or privacy issues may lead to exceptions to the above processes. Such examples will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with standard processes followed as much as possible.