Publication and Authorship

• All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Editor in Chief.
• The factors that are taken into account in review are originality, relevance, readability, statistical validity and language.
• The possible decisions include rejection, major revision, minor revisions or acceptance.
• Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
• If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
• No paper can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal, in another journal or conference.
• The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Authors' Responsibilities
Authors must guarantee that their manuscript is their original work.

• Authors must guarantee that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal or conference.
• All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Authors are forced to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
• Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
• Authors must guarantee that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
• Authors must participate in the peer review.
• Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
• Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
• Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
• Authors cannot withdraw their articles after acceptance or publishing.

Responsibility for the Reviewers in Peer Review
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in minimum 500 words.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
• Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Editorial Responsibilities
Editors and Editor in Chief have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

• Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
• Editors publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
• Editors do not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
• Editors guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
• Editors guarantee that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
• Editors have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
• Editors base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, clarity, relevance and originality to publication's scope.
• Editors do not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
• Editors always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
• Editors do not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
• Editors act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
• Editors only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
• Editors do not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have an important reason.

Publishing Ethics Issues
All editorial members and authors must publish any kind of correction honestly and completely.

• Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
• Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article before acceptance or publishing.

Policy and Action for Plagiarism

FHI shall take serious action against published manuscripts found to contain plagiarism and shall completely remove them from FHI website and other third party websites where the paper is listed and indexed. The moment, any article published in FHI database is reported to be plagiarized, FHI will constitute a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) to investigate the same. Upon having established that the manuscript is plagiarized from some previously published work, FHI shall support the original author and manuscript irrespective of the publisher and may take any or all of the following immediate actions or follow the additional course of actions as recommended by the committee:

1- FHI editorial office shall immediately contact the Director / Dean / Head of the concerned College, Institution or Organization or the Vice Chancellor of the University to which the author(s) is (are) affiliated to take strict action against the concerned author.

2- FHI shall remove the PDF copy of the published manuscript from the website and disable all links to full text article. The term Plagiarized Manuscript shall be appended to the published manuscript title.

3- FHI shall disable the author account with the journal and reject all future submissions from the author for a period of at least 3 to 5 years.

4- FHI may also display the list of such authors along with their full contact details on FHI website.

5- Any other course of action, as recommended by the Committee or as deemed fit for the instant case or as decided by the Editorial Board, from time to time.

Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. We decide that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the author archive the consent and instead providing the journal with a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.

Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.

Patient identifiers will not be published in FHI, unless written informed consent is given and the content is essential for the scientific purpose and merit of the manuscript. Photographs of subjects showing any recognizable features must be accompanied by t heir signed release authorizing publication, as must case reports that provide enough unique identification of a person (other than name) to make recognition possible. Failure to obtain informed consent of patient prior to submission would result in manuscript rejection.

Online corrections.

The version of an article which is published online is considered the final and complete version. Even though it is possible to correct this version, our policy (in common with other publishers) is not to do so, except in very limited circumstances.

We are only able to correct typographical errors in the following: author names, affiliations, articles titles, and abstracts and keywords. In such cases, an erratum or corrigendum would be necessary as well (see below), so that there is a record to explain the difference between the online and print versions.

We can publish a correction to your article if there is a serious error, for example with regard to scientific accuracy, or if your reputation or that of the journal would be affected. We do not publish corrections that do not affect the contribution in a material way or significantly impair the reader's understanding of the contribution (such as a spelling mistake or a grammatical error).

Errata

An erratum will be used if an important error has been introduced during the production of the journal article (one that affects the publication record, the scientific integrity of the paper, the reputation of the authors or of the journal), including errors of omission such as failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy.

We do not publish errata for typing errors except where an apparently simple error is significant (for example, an incorrect unit). A significant error in a figure or table is corrected by publication of a new corrected figure or table as an erratum. The figure or table is republished only if the editor considers it necessary.

Corrigenda
A corrigendum is a notification of an important error made by the authors of the article. All authors must sign corrigenda submitted for publication.

In cases where co-authors disagree, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers and impose the appropriate amendment, noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.

Addenda
An addendum is a notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to a paper, for example in response to a reader's request for clarification. Addenda do not contradict the original publication, but if the author inadvertently omitted significant information available at the time, this material can be published as an addendum after peer review.

Addenda are published only rarely and only when the editors decide that the addendum is crucial to the reader's understanding of a significant part of the published contribution.

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

Research involving human subjects, 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.

The submitted study has to be supported by the ethics/bioethics committee approval. 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.

We do not allow any type of advertisement in our journal website.