1. Editorial Policies
  • Editor’s conscience
    • Editors should encourage their journal’s reviewers, authors, and professionals by ensuring their journal’s activities go right conduct with honest editorial teams, reviewer’s selection, review timelines, acceptance rate and its exercising authority are crystal clear.
    • Editors should maintain confidentiality of journal’s organizing practices, and should thank the reviewers for their extensive support in spending their valuable time.
    • Editors must prevent partiality by managing conflicts of interest, and be able to distinguish editorial and business activities
    • Editors are responsible in the improvising quality of their journal by practising research ethics, best peer-review, structured editing, also in conducting programs to evaluate the journal's operation periodically
    • Editors recommend to follow continuous evaluation of manuscript that which has to be ethically conducted, is materially sound with a clear and complete report.
    • Editors are responsible in making corrections as necessary to maintain integrity in scientific research published and should retract publications if found unethical.
    • Editors should follow lodgments of misconduct towards research, reviewers and co-editors involved in the issue until it gets resolved.
    • Responsible in disseminating and establishing clear and fair policies for editors, researchers, and reviewers; should consider potential conflicts of interest for editors and reviewers; should accountable in the prevention of conflicts of interest from affecting journal decision making.
    • Should keen on maintaining respectable relationships with individuals, ensure integrity in professional relationships with stakeholders, and should not exercise misconduct using their positions for personal gain.
    • Should uphold the reputation of their journals following ethical behaviour and realize the need to cure knowledge deficits in person and their co-editors.
    • Should verify editorial independence from publishers, owners, corporations, industries, laboratories and other scientific groups which may possess potential conflicts of interest.
    • Should publish the best research through detailed editing; judging journal processes, reviewing journal publication metrics, employing in frequent quality improvement, measuring journal and article impact, reacting to reviewers, authors and reader feedback, ensuring protection of journal content, and exerting board (editor, reviewer) members and author relationships with eminent researchers in the fields similar to their journals.
    • Should deal medicine and health related problems, and misconduct that is relevant to the journal's readers; build the journal approachable to as many readers as possible; and look for activity of authors, reviewers, and editorial board members from low and middle income countries.
2. Reviewer Policies
  • Peer Reviewers
    • Should be aware of the manuscripts submitted are privileged communications and should be treated confidentially.
    • Should provide their recommendations of the strengths and weaknesses of an article in written form as well as a report generated by Zinianz.
    • Should direct their attention in advancing the report of their review, recognising most relevant, and the best quality material for the journal.
    • Those who are active members of the journal should meet their minimum standards about their background qualification in original research, a number of publications, training in editing manuscripts if any, and earlier finest appraisals for manuscripts.
    • Should be an expert in the field of science addressed in the manuscripts they review, selection should be done based on their expertise, objectivity, and knowledge in scientific research.
    Reviewers are expected to be professional, fair & transparent, courteous, prompt and positive.

    • The expected elements of a quality peer-review that should be followed by a reviewer are as follows:
    • Should identify and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of design of research and its methodology.
    • Should comment accurately on the quality of authors' research findings, acknowledging its limitations and responsible for constructive representation of research analytics.
    • Should provide with a written notice on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, independent of the research methodology, results, and representation of study and design.
    • Should recommend authors with valuable suggestions in improving his/her manuscripts.
    • Should comment on ethical concerns, accompanied to the research, or any potential evidence of scientific misconduct.
    • Recommendations should be objective, fair and professional.
    • The review should help the editor with necessary details to make decisions on the manuscript acceptance.
    Reviewers are asked not to share with colleagues the manuscripts assigned to them without prior permission of the editor.
    Reviewers should not make any misuse of research findings, data, or interpretations of their personal or academic use before publication without any author’s prior permission or are stating their use as editorials, commentaries to assort the article.
3. Journal Policies
  • Zinianz Journal (ContROL) on a regular basis obtains recommendations on individual manuscripts from reviewers who are not a part of our journal’s editorial staff. 
    The journal follows open peer-review model aimed to improve precision, transparency, and comprehensiveness of published manuscripts and to give assistance to editors in making decisions which manuscripts to publish. 
    Selection of Peer-reviewers are made based on their expertise, capability in providing their excellency and fair reviews. Peer-reviewers are encouraged to advise editors on what base manuscript must improve its current quality and its priority for publication. 
    Journal obtains reviews for a manuscript from peers around the world, who are experts in the manuscripts content area and in research methods concerning the field of study. Journal allots manuscripts to two external (not suggested by the authors) reviewers to maintain its high quality review process. For their efforts in a fair review, reviewers are given credit in the form of points and are redeemable by their own publications in our journal. 
    Journal strictly follows publications which come under the scope of the concerned specialization and if not will be returned back to the authors without any further review in order to save the valuable time of our editors and peer-reviewers. 
4. Research Involving Humans
  • Ethics approval
    All studies involving humans (individuals, human data or material) must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the authors’ institutions or other relevant ethics committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) to ensure that they meet national and international guidelines. Details of this approval must be provided when submitting an article, including the institution, review board name, and permit number(s).
    Human studies categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, should include a justification of the choice of definitions and categories, including whether any rules of human categorization were required by the relevant funding agencies. Appropriate non-stigmatizing language should be used when describing different groups.
    Ethics approval must be obtained before the research is conducted; retrospective approval can usually not be obtained and it may not be possible to publish the study.
    Patient privacy and informed consent for publication
    As stated in the Uniform Requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: “Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) give written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that the patient be shown the manuscript to be published. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published article.”
    Consent to participate: For all studies involving human participants, including personal genomics studies, case reports, clinical trials, questionnaires, observations etc, informed written consent to take part in the research must have been obtained, and this should be stated in the article in a section entitled ‘Consent’. You can use our consent form, or your own institution’s form as you prefer. If only oral consent was obtained (rather than written), the reasons need to be explained, confirmation of IRB approval that oral consent was adequate must be provided, and a statement of how it was documented included in the Consent section.
    Consent for publication of identifiable data: For any articles that include information that could potentially identify an individual, please ensure that you have obtained written, informed consent from all patients or healthy participants (or their legal guardians for minors, or next of kin if the participant is deceased), confirming that the results can be published. This includes large clinical datasets with direct or indirect identifiers (see this article for information), specific details about individuals, images and so on. If this applies to your article, you also need to include an explicit statement, under a separate heading of the ‘Consent’ section (we suggest: ‘Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/relative of the patient.’).
    Alternatively, if no consent for publication was required (e.g. The data have been anonymised), then this should be clearly stated and a note should be added, confirming that such alterations have not distorted scientific meaning.
    Signed consent forms should be made available to the ContROL editorial office if requested.
5. Research Involving Animals
  • Studies involving animals must have been conducted in line with the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments’ (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by NC3Rs to improve standards of reporting, ensuring that the data from animal experiments can be fully scrutinized and utilized. The relevant information outlined in these guidelines should be included in the appropriate section of the article.
    Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must be carried out within the ethical guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of ethics permission granted or animal licenses should be included. If animals were used, but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary.
    In all cases, a statement should be made to confirm that all efforts were made to ameliorate any suffering of animals and details of how this was achieved should be provided.
    Authors should comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
6. Research Involving Plants
  • Studies on plants must be carried out within the guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of permissions granted or licenses should be included. Authors should comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
7. Reporting Standards
  • Standards of reporting guidelines help authors to ensure that they have provided a comprehensive description of their research, making it easier for others to assess and reproduce the work; for more detail and a comprehensive overview, see the BioSharing initiative. Comprehensive lists of available reporting guidelines can be found on the EQUATOR network website for health research, and on the MIBBI website for biological research.

    Specifically, articles in ContROL that report clinical trials must adhere to the CONSORT reporting guidelines. We ask authors to include a copy of the original trial protocol and a completed CONSORT checklist and flow diagram as supporting files, which will be published alongside your article. Any deviation from the original trial protocol must be explained in the article.


    • Copyright is retained by author(s) for an open access article published by Zinianz Publishing journal (ContROL)
    • Author(s) give permission to ContROL to publish the articles with a license & agreement
    • Author(s) give authority to ContROL in order to name it as an original publisher
    • Author(s) give the right to individuals (editors, reviewers, scientists, professionals, scholars, learners and audience for the journals) to make use of the articles without any charge by maintaining its integrity giving credits to original authors, providing reference naming the publisher.
    • The terms and conditions in publishing an article towards Journals of Zinianz Publications is formalized under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
    Reviewer recommendations that are published with a given article are also available under the CC BY license.
9. Permanency of Content
  • All articles published in ContROL receive a DOI and are permanently published. This applies regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows after publication.
    Authors can revise, change and update their articles by publishing new versions, which add to the article’s history; however, the individual versions, once published, cannot be altered or withdrawn and are permanently available on the ContROL website. ContROL participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. By applying the CrossMark policies, ContROL is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alert readers to changes if and when they occur.
    Clicking on the CrossMark logo (at the top of each ContROL article) will give you the current status of an article and direct you to the latest published version; it may also give you additional information such as new reviewer reports.
    In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, the following policies will be applied when published content needs to be corrected; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing and library communities:
    Correction to an Article
    In traditional journals, where articles are peer reviewed before publication, Corrections (or Errata) are published to alert readers to errors in the article that became apparent following the publication of the final article.
    By contrast, articles in ContROL undergo peer review post publication and publication is not ‘final’ as new versions can be added at any stage. Possible mistakes that come to light during the peer review process may be highlighted in the published reviewer reports, which are part of the article. Authors can publish revised versions, and any errors that become apparent during peer review or later can be corrected through the publication of new versions. Corrections and changes relative to the previous version are always summarized in the ‘Amendments’ section at the start of a new version.
    This action is reserved for articles that are seriously flawed and so the findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon. Articles may be retracted for several reasons, including:
    Honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty)
    • Research misconduct (data fabrication)
    • Duplicate or overlapping publication
    • Fraudulent use of data
    • Clear plagiarism
    • Unethical research
    For any retracted article, the reason for the retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article (which usually remains on the site) and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF).
    An article is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by the publisher in response to an institutional investigation. It is important to note in the context of Zinianz’s publication model, that ‐ as in traditional journals ‐ a retracted article is not ‘unpublished’ or ‘withdrawn’ in order for it to be published elsewhere. The reasons for retraction are usually so serious that the whole studies, or large parts of it, are not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere.
    The content of a retracted article would only be removed where legal limitations have been placed upon the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), for example, if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information for the article will be retained on the site along with information regarding the circumstances that led to the removal of the content.
    Under rare circumstances, for example, if false or inaccurate data have been published that, if acted upon, pose a serious health risk, the original incorrect version(s) may be removed and a corrected version published. The reason for this partial removal would be clearly stated in the latest version.
    Editorial Note
    If there is a potential, not yet resolved, problem with an article, it may be appropriate to alert readers with an Editorial Note. Such an Editorial Note may be added, for example, if ContROL receives information that research or publication misconduct might have taken place, or that there is a serious dispute between authors or between the authors and third parties. The Editorial Note will usually be posted while further investigations take place and until a more permanent solution has been found (e.g. The publication of a revised ‘corrected’ version, or a Retraction).
10. Policy for Review/User Comments
  • While peer reviewers are formally invited, we encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles. Such contributions are published through our Comment system. To ensure that comments contribute to, and focus on, the scientific debate, we only allow comments from readers who have a formal affiliation with a research institution, or other clearly life science-related organization. Consistent with our commitment to full transparency, the reader’s full name and affiliation appear on their public comment.
    Comments should focus on the scientific content presented in the articles with which they are associated.
    Comments that appear to be advertising, are potentially libellous or legally problematic (including comments revealing patient information) will not be published. We will not accept Comments that are offensive, indecent or contain negative comments of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.
    All Comments must be written in good English; a Comment may be rejected if it is deemed unintelligible.
    Readers who wish to comment on an article are asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests can be of a financial nature (e.g. Holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the Comment), or they can be personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests. When completing your declaration, please consider the issues summarized in the Declaration of Competing Interests.
11. Post-Publication Peer Review
  • All articles undergo formal peer review by inviting experts who meet our criteria for reviewers; these criteria are aimed at ensuring that reviewers have sufficient expertise and qualifications to judge the content of the article and that they have no conflicts of interest.
    With the exception of ContROL Reviews, peer review takes place after publication and is driven by the authors who must suggest the reviewers and who decide when and how to address any criticisms raised by the reviewers. Communication with the reviewers is done by the editorial team, on behalf of the authors.
    The peer-review process is completely transparent: the reviewer's names and their reports are published alongside the article, and the authors’ responses to the reviewers (or to reader comments) are also posted for readers to see.
    Revisions and updates are published as new versions, with clear explanations (in an “Amendments” section) of the changes the authors made. 
    Stopping Peer Review
    Peer review may be discontinued on some articles that have not received sufficient referee reports over a long period of time. As a general rule, authors may choose to stop peer review if their article, has not received any reports after 6 months, or if only 1 report has been received after 9 months. In some cases, where the authors have not actively pursued peer review, the ContROL team may add an explanation in the article to alert readers that the peer review of the article is not active.
    Articles with 0 or 1 report have not passed peer review and are not indexed in PubMed and other bibliographic databases; if peer review is stopped in consultation with the ContROL team, the article (which is permanently published with a DOI and cannot be removed) can be considered equivalent to a preprint and the authors may choose to submit the manuscript to a journal for peer review and publication elsewhere (it is at the discretion of the journal editors the authors are submitting to how they consider the history of the article at ContROL).
    Peer review of these articles can be reactivated at a later stage at the authors’ request, provided the article has not been peer-reviewed and published elsewhere in the meantime.