Conflict of Interest


MARP editions strongly support the mission of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Guidelines for Journal Editors; all those collaborating with MARP editions are strongly encouraged to adhere to this mission.


All research articles published by the Phenomena Journal are subject to rigorous ethical standards. Our journal supports the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct, as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Guidelines for Authors. The Journal's Editorial Board is responsible for shaping the peer review process; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. MARP editions also support the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion in Editorial Decisions.

Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publishing

The Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Academic Publishing should apply to all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings. Where practices deviate from the stated standards, publishers must transparently communicate the procedures followed by the journal. These principles also recognize that editors and publishers are responsible for promoting accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity in all aspects of publishing. Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit. They should not be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Journals should ensure that policies do not create an exclusive environment for anyone wishing to interact with the journal and should regularly evaluate their policies regarding inclusivity. MARP editions maintain an impartial stance on territorial descriptions, maps, and author affiliations published. All territorial claims are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the affiliated organizations, the publisher, the editors, or the reviewers.


The Editorial Board of our journal will review all articles submitted for publication. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism using available online tools. Any suspicious behavior leads to swift rejection and is then reported to the European Network of Research Integrity Offices and the United States Office of Research Integrity. The Federation of European Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) has published a European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting articles to our journals are required to adopt these policies.

Below are some online resources to help you understand plagiarism:

Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.

Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), a reviewer, or an editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence their actions (such relationships are also known as dual loyalties, competing interests, or conflicting loyalties). These relationships range from negligible to a high potential to influence judgment. Not all relationships represent a true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for a conflict of interest may exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship influences their scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancy, stock ownership, fees, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to compromise the credibility of the journal, authors, and science itself. However, conflicts can arise for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer review and publication process must disclose any relationships that could be considered potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in relation to editorials and review articles, as bias in these types of publications may be more difficult to detect than in original research reports. Editors may use the information disclosed in conflict of interest and financial interest statements as the basis for editorial decisions.

When authors submit a manuscript, whether it be an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that could influence their work. To avoid ambiguity, authors should explicitly state whether there are any potential conflicts. Authors should do this in the manuscript on a conflict of interest notification page, providing additional details, if necessary, in a cover letter accompanying the manuscript. Increasingly, studies are funded by commercial companies, private foundations, and governments. The terms of this funding have the potential to discredit research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to present research results credibly for publication. Additionally, as individuals directly responsible for their work, researchers should not accept agreements that interfere with their access to data and their ability to analyze it independently and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source did not have such involvement, authors should so state. The potential for bias introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research is analogous to methodological biases.

Editors may require authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome to sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all the data in this study and assume full responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with specific project studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has claimed control over authors' right to publish.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that may affect their opinions of the manuscript and must abstain from reviewing specific manuscripts if there is the potential for bias. As with authors, reviewers' silence regarding potential conflicts may mean that conflicts exist and the reviewer has not disclosed them, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers should therefore also be asked to explicitly state whether there are any conflicts. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, prior to its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors making final decisions about articles should have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the topics they might judge. Other editorial staff, if involved in editorial decisions, should provide editors with an up-to-date description of their financial interests (as they may pertain to editorial judgments) and abstain from any decision where a conflict of interest exists.

Informed Consent

The Phenomena Journal strictly follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) policy on Protection of Research Participants. When authors wish to include details about cases, other personal information, or images of patients or other individuals in a MARP editions publication, appropriate consents, permissions, and authorizations must be obtained. Patients have the right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. When informed consent has been obtained, editors may request authors to provide a copy before making an editorial decision. Authors can find a model Informed Consent here.

It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that:

each individual, or the legal guardian or other individuals with legal authority to act on behalf of the individual, who appears in any video, recording, photograph, image, illustration, or case report (or in any other identifiable form), is informed in advance of:

the fact that such photographs are taken or such videos, recordings, photographs, images, illustrations, or case reports are made and all purposes for which such photographs or such videos, recordings, photographs, images, illustrations, or case reports are made, the individuals concerned should also be informed that individual images of such works or products may be identifiable through search engines.

That individual, legal guardian, or person with legal authority must provide explicit and fully informed written consent.

f such consent is conditioned (e.g., by taking measures to prevent the personal identification of the individual), MARP editions must be made aware of all such conditions in writing. The individuals concerned must be informed that once the material has been published, such consent cannot be revoked. Written consents must be retained by the author, and copies of the consents or proof of such consents must be provided to MARP editions upon request, but these should not be sent to MARP editions unless specifically requested in writing.

The written consent form meets all the requirements of all applicable data protection and privacy laws. Particular care must be taken to obtain fully informed consent without coercion when children are involved, when an individual has cognitive or intellectual disabilities, when an individual's head or face appears, when an individual's name or other personal details are mentioned, or when other vulnerable groups or individuals are mentioned.

If parents or guardians of a child do not agree to the use of images of that child, consent should be considered not given, and the images should not be used. To reduce the risk of images being misused, only images of appropriately clothed children should be used.

Even if consent has been obtained, care must be taken to ensure that the depiction and title of the person in question are respectful and do not appear denigrating.

Special precautions should also be taken when there is the potential for extensive media coverage of a specific case report so that the individual is fully informed of the potential extent of publicity and can make an informed decision about participation.

Special Considerations

Names, initials, hospital or social security numbers, dates of birth, or other personal or identifying information of patients and research subjects should not be used.

Images of patients or research subjects should not be used unless necessary for scientific purposes and explicit permission has been granted as part of the consent process. Even if consent has been granted, identifying information should be omitted if not necessary.

If identifying characteristics are modified to protect anonymity, authors must ensure that the modifications do not alter the scientific meaning.

Non-identifiable Images

Formal consents are not required for the use of completely anonymous images from which the individual cannot be identified, such as X-rays, ultrasound images, histological preparations, provided they do not contain identifying marks and are not accompanied by text that could identify the individual in question. Although no formal consent is required, the author should inform the patient that their images will be used in a scientific publication as a matter of good practice and courtesy.

Even if details that could identify a patient or allow a patient to identify themselves must be removed from case reports, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, so informed consent must be obtained for all case reports. This also applies to case reports involving deceased individuals, for which consent should be obtained from the individual's appointed representatives if not provided by the individual. If consent has not been obtained, simply using bars over the eyes or blurring the face of the individual to anonymize a photograph is generally insufficient.


Manuscripts should be reviewed maintaining the confidentiality of the authors. When authors submit manuscripts for review, they entrust editors with the results of their scientific and creative work, upon which their reputation and career may be based. Disclosure of confidential details during the review of an author's manuscript may violate their rights. Reviewers are entitled to confidentiality, which the publisher must respect. Confidentiality may need to be breached if dishonesty or fraud is suspected, but otherwise must be maintained. Editors must not disclose information about manuscripts to anyone other than the authors and reviewers (including their receipt, content, status in the review process, reviewers' criticisms, or final disposition). This includes requests for materials for use in legal proceedings.

Role of Funding Source

Authors are asked to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding sources had no such involvement, it is advised to state so.

Requirement to Register Clinical Trials

The ICMJE considers it important to promote a comprehensive and publicly accessible database of clinical trials. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns human subjects to intervention or comparison or control groups to study the cause-and-effect relationship between a medical intervention and a health outcome. Medical interventions include drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, changes in the care process, etc. Our journals require, as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public registry of trials. The journal considers a trial for publication only if it has been registered before the enrollment of the first patient. Editors consider trial registries that meet the ICMJE requirements and are freely available to the public. Some registries that meet these criteria include:

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)

The European Clinical Trials Registry (EuCTR)

The US Clinical Trials Registry (

The International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization (WHO)

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR)

The Cuban Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC)

The Indian Clinical Trials Registry (CTRI)

The Iranian Clinical Trials Registry (IRCT)

The International Registry of Iranian Clinical Trials (IRCT)

The International Registry of Islamic Clinical Trials (IRCT)

The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR)

The Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBec)

The Korean Clinical Trials Registry (CRiS)

The Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR)

The journal may require registration of clinical trials that do not meet ICMJE requirements. Criteria for inclusion of clinical trials may vary from one journal to another.

Transparency in Aggregate Data Use

In some research fields, the analysis of large datasets can lead to results subject to a range of interpretations, where the analyst's subjectivity can influence the outcome. Therefore, transparency about the use of aggregate data and analysis methods is necessary. Authors must provide a detailed description of the statistical and analytical methods used, including criteria for inclusion/exclusion of data and procedures for handling missing data. Where appropriate, information should be provided on data sources and data collection methodologies.

Complaints and Reactions to Allegations of Ethical Violations

MARP editions welcome complaints and reactions to allegations of ethical violations and strive to respond promptly to such allegations. MARP editions support the COPE's Complaint and Appeal Review Process. If an authority or individual has grounds to believe that an article published by Phenomena Journal contains errors, omits relevant data, or involves ethical issues, they are invited to submit a report to the Editorial Committee of the involved journal.

When a complaint or reaction is received, the Editorial Committee of the journal takes the following steps:

A confirmation of receipt of the complaint or reaction is sent within five working days.

The Editorial Committee reviews the complaint or reaction and determines whether an internal inquiry is required.

If an internal inquiry is required, the Editorial Committee will appoint a group of individuals (who may be members of the Editorial Committee or external experts) to investigate the matter. The Editorial Committee may also consult external experts to obtain independent opinion.

The Editorial Committee will conduct a thorough and impartial assessment of the complaint or reaction.

The Editorial Committee will provide a full and reasoned response to the complaint or reaction within 60 working days.

The Editorial Committee may take a range of corrective measures following the inquiry, if necessary, including publishing a correction, retracting the article, or temporarily suspending the author.

If an internal inquiry is not required, the Editorial Committee will provide a full and reasoned response within 60 working days.

If the complaint or reaction cannot be resolved directly with the Editorial Committee of the involved journal, the complaint or reaction may be reported to COPE.

In conclusion, MARP editions promote and strongly support ethics in academic publishing and are committed to responding promptly and transparently to any complaints or reactions regarding alleged ethical violations in its journals.