All academic journals published by MESOPOTAMIAN ACADEMIC PRESS (MAP) must adhere to the guidelines outlined below.


Through the submission of an article to a journal published by MAP, authors signify their understanding of an agreement with the journal's policies and the content of their submission.

Ethical Considerations and Permission:

MAP strictly abides by the Practice Standards released by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when it comes to publishing journals.

The name of the ethics committee or institutional review board, the approved reference number/ID, and a statement that participants gave their informed consent before participating must all be included in submissions outlining research investigations. Research that has been approved by an institutional review board or research ethics committee may nevertheless be subject to additional editorial inquiries from reviewers concerned with the study's ethical implications. Human participants, human tissue, or human data study must also have been done in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by an authorized ethical committee. If the editors of a journal find that a research study was not conducted according to proper ethical guidelines, they reserve the right to reject the study's submission. The editors may also consult the relevant institution's ethical committee as necessary.

We reserve the right to contact authors' institutions, funders, or regulatory organizations if we find it necessary to further investigate allegations of publishing misconduct, both before and after publication. If there is sufficient proof of misconduct, to rectify the situation, procedures will be taken, which may include the publication of a retraction or correction, into the scientific literature.

Authors are presumed to have a working knowledge of publication ethics, including those related to authorship, duplicate submissions, plagiarism, fabricated data, conflicts of interest, and other related issues. Concerning incidents of possible wrongdoing, we will adhere to COPE's norms and processes and consult the COPE forum for guidance.

Retrospective Ethical Clearance:

It is usually not possible to gain retrospective ethical clearance if a study did not obtain it before beginning, and the submission may not be considered for peer-review as a result. It is up to the discretion of the journal's editors to decide whether or not to send such submissions out for peer review.

Conflicting Interests:

Authors of research and non-research articles must disclose any conflicts of interest that could impact their peer review, presentation, editorial decision-making, or publication of the papers in journals published by MAP.

When a professional's objectivity is jeopardized by employment, personal profit, consultancy, stock holdings or options, patents, honoraria, or paid expert testimony unrelated to the primary interest, a conflict of interest occurs. Having competing interests is not inherently unethical, but they must be disclosed. Both in the cover letter and the section of the submission form titled "competing interests," authors are required to state any conflicts of interest. With regard to creating and disseminating this work, the author(s) "assert that they have no conflicting interests." The Editor has the right to ask for more information if they think there might be a conflict of interest.

If an editor or reviewer has a conflict of interest, they must reveal it, and they will be removed from the peer review process. No MAP journal editor may have any financial ties to a biomedical company.

Any potential conflicts of interest must be declared, as their disclosure is essential to the honest reporting of research. If competing interests aren't declared, a paper could be instantly rejected. MAP shall follow COPE standards and alert the public if new information about a disclosed conflict of interest emerges after publication. Competing interests can be monetary or a prior investment in a different venture, or they can be more personal in nature. Regarding a company or an individual, there could be competing interests.

Financial Conflicts of Interest:

When an author receives compensation from a company that stands to gain or lose financially as a result of the publication of the work, such as in the form of reimbursements, service charges, funding, or revenue, the following are examples of a financial conflict of interest:

  • Possession of, or intent to acquire, stocks or shares in a company that could profit or lose money as a result of the publishing of the content.
  • Having patents on the subject matter of the work or actively seeking patents in that area.
  • Being compensated, paying fees, or receiving a salary from a business that owns patents on the topic of the manuscript or has filed patent applications.

Nonfinancial Conflicts of Interest:

Non-monetary competing interests include those that are personal, political, ideological, scholarly, and intellectual in nature.


In the academic field, the term "Author" is used to refer to a person who has made significant intellectual contributions to a published work. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), there are four ways to determine who the original authors are:

  1. Important input in the formative stages, such as ideation, design, or data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
  2. Considering the work's intellectual significance critically as you write or revise it.
  3. There is full support for the final product.
  4. Taking full ownership of the work, including investigating and resolving any concerns about the work's veracity or integrity.

Authors are expected to take responsibility for their work but also to know when another author is more directly responsible for a certain part of the work. Additionally, authors should trust their coauthors' efforts. A list of authors should only include those who fulfill all four of the aforementioned authorship requirements.

To be clear, a person is not eligible for authorship only because they helped with things like funding, data collection, providing technical support, writing, or overseeing the study group as a whole. There should be an "Acknowledgements" section for those who do not fulfill all four criteria.


There must be an "Acknowledgments" section that lists the names and contributions of anyone who helped create the submitted work but does not fit the four criteria for authorship.

The authors should ensure that anybody credited in the "Acknowledgments" section has given their blessing to be so recognized. Donations, both monetary and otherwise, should be appreciated. Grants, institutional funding, and commercial sponsorship must all be stated. Payments to consultants and investigators should be recorded as well.

In accordance with the standards set forth by the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), all parties involved in the development of the manuscript's content, including but not limited to the scientific (medical) writers, as well as the funding agencies that provided said funding, must be properly credited.

Details Concerning the Publisher

The names and institutions of the authors are published in journals so that the appropriate people can be given credit for the study they conducted. Publications are also retrieved from databases and bibliographic indexes using author data; however, many resources do not include or provide complete author data. We've noticed that some authors use initials from their first or last name instead of a middle name, and that others who don't have a middle name have done so in the past.

Journals published by MAP adhere to a strict policy of publishing all author information, including names and affiliations, as provided by the corresponding author at the time of submission.

If an author wants their work published in a journal put out by the MAP, they'll need to review and approve a presentation of their author data that's been generated mechanically.

This is done to limit the amount of changes made during proofreading or after publication, to ensure that bibliographic indexes and databases contain the correct author information, and to ensure that publications contain accurate author information.

This addresses the formatting of author names and affiliations in bibliographic databases like PubMed and Scopus. As a result, authors must submit data that is consistent with their previous publications in terms of citations.

Authorship Changes

Every author must agree to a change in authorship after the paper has been submitted (including order, additions, and deletions). The authors themselves should decide and agree on the order of authorship. The editor also has to understand the rationale behind any revisions. Following the COPE criteria, MAP requires the prior written approval of all authors before any suggested changes to the authorship of submissions or published items are made.

Email confirmation is required from the writers themselves. The corresponding author is accountable for getting the approval of the other authors on the revised version of the paper. The writers should seek assistance from their respective institutions if they are unable to resolve their authorship dispute. Editors of academic journals should not become involved in disputes over authorship. Changes in authorship of previously published articles are permitted only through the issuance of an Erratum.

Unique Identifiers

Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) is a community-driven, open-source project that manages individual researcher identities and establishes a transparent link between researchers' contributions and output. Writers are encouraged by MAP to make use of these notations. Any person submitting a manuscript to a journal or chosen as a peer reviewer for a journal's submissions must disclose their ORCIDs for the first and corresponding authors. All publications' editorial board members must list their ORCIDs on their profiles.


Articles that aren't research reports (such as Opinion, Review, and Commentary pieces) are still expected to cite appropriate and relevant literature to back up their claims. We strongly advise against excessive or inappropriate self-citation, as well as any coordinated efforts by numerous authors to self-cite collectively. When writing their manuscript, authors should keep in mind the following instructions:

Any assertion in the paper that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors' own original ideas, findings, or general knowledge) should be accompanied with a reference.
Authors should refrain from mentioning derivative works. For instance, they should cite the original work as opposed to a review piece that cites the original work.
Authors should verify the accuracy of their citations (i.e., they should ensure the citation supports the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make).
Unread sources should not be cited by authors.
Authors should not favorably credit their own, their friends', their peers', or their institution's works.
Authors should avoid mentioning only works from a single nation.
A point should not be supported by an excessive quantity of citations.
Whenever possible, authors should cite sources that have passed peer review.
Authors should avoid citing advertising and advertorials.

Publication Duplicate

Submissions to journals published by MAP must be completely original and not be under consideration for publication anywhere else while in review. We want authors to be honest whenever there is a chance of overlap or duplication. All relevant publications should be disclosed by the author at the time of submission, and copies should be included if possible. It is important to make a note of any overlapping articles.

The author must make available any "in press" or unpublished manuscripts that are referenced in the article and are considered to be essential reading by the Editor and reviewers. It is within the discretion of MAP to determine whether or not two separate publications are unnecessary. No prior publication of the submitted manuscript in a journal or other referenceable medium is permitted. The exceptions to this rule, such as when a paper is submitted for presentation as a poster or at a conference, must be explained and made clear at the time of submission.

Journals published by MAP use the Turnitin plagiarism detection service and take any allegations of unethical publication practices very seriously. The editor will follow the Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) guidelines for dealing with suspected cases of covert duplicate submission, which may include contacting the authors' institutions (see Misconduct policy for more information). By publishing this statement, MAP agrees with the ICMJE's guidelines on overlapping publication.

Text Recyclability

Authors should be aware that work recycling (also known as self-plagiarism) is forbidden in particular contexts. The term "text recycling" refers to the practice of reusing already published text. Duplicate text from an author's previous works must be clearly acknowledged, appropriately cited, and in accordance with copyright laws whenever possible. Authors should notify the journal editors in the cover letter if their submission reuses content from elsewhere.


At MAP, we use a strict peer review process for all research articles and the vast majority of other article genres. In many cases, this calls for the inspection of two impartial colleagues. The peer review process may differ slightly amongst periodicals. If you want to know how a certain publication handles its peer reviews, you'll have to check out the journal's website.

The Policy on Peer Review

After receiving submissions, editors at MAP choose which articles will undergo the rigorous peer review process. If an editor is also an author on a submission or has a competing interest in the work, that editor will not conduct the peer review. Acceptable submissions will be distributed to appropriate outside experts for blind peer review. On the basis of the reviewers' reports, the editors will make a decision, and both the editors' decision and the reviewers' reports will be provided to the authors. The paper could be rejected despite a good report if further reviewers raise serious concerns that cast doubt on the study's reliability. Every publication from MAP goes through a rigorous, Single-blind peer review process before it is published. In this case, the anonymity of the authors and reviewers is equally protected.


Based on their scientific achievements and publication track record, MAP welcomes scientists from all subjects and international institutions to serve as Editors. Based on the COPE Guidelines' requirements for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, the Scholarly Journals Council of MAP selects the best candidate. To ensure that the COPE Guidelines are being adhered to, an auditing process is carried out on a regular basis. Both the editors and the peer reviewers evaluate each paper. Journal articles are accepted or rejected for publication based on the Editors' evaluation of the reviews written by the journal's peer reviewers.


Authors have the option to suggest reviewers for their work, but it is ultimately up to the editor to decide whether or not to use such suggestions. There should be no suggestions of recent collaborators or colleagues who work at the same institution as the author. In the cover letter, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers and, if possible, provide the Editor with contact information for the suggested reviewer, such as an institutional email address (for example an ORCID or Scopus ID). The authors may ask that reviewers be replaced, but they must provide a justification for doing so in the cover letter accompanying the submission. As doing so may slow down the peer review process, authors should be careful not to exclude too many people.

In some cases, editors will accept peer reviewers who have been previously rejected.

Intentionally falsifying information, such as recommending reviewers with a fake name or email address, is a violation of our policy on misconduct and may result in the submission's rejection and additional investigation.


All journal submissions will be treated in confidence by the editors. Reviewers have a similar duty to protect the privacy of the publications they read. To the best of our knowledge, MAP journals will not disclose submitted papers to any outside parties except in cases of suspected misconduct. For further information, please review our Misconduct Policy.


Claims of wrongdoing are taken very seriously at MAP. When dealing with allegations of misconduct in its journals, MAP follows the COPE standards. The editor may have to get in touch with the author's institution and/or an ethical commission if there is reason to believe that the author has committed misconduct in their study or publishing (s). Furthermore, MAP can consult COPE for advice and debate cases in the COPE Forum while maintaining confidentiality.

Academic Misconduct

The use of human subjects, human data, or human material in a study must have been done so in accordance with applicable ethical standards (for more information, see our Ethics and consent policy). If the editor has reason to believe that the research was not done within an appropriate ethical framework, he or she may decide not to publish the manuscript and instead notify relevant parties, such as the authors' institution and ethics committee (s).

It is possible to retract a publication if the authors can be shown to have engaged in research misconduct or if the study's scientific integrity has been substantially affected. For further information, please see our policy on errata and retractions.

Publication Misbehavior

The MAP commits to publishing journals that follow the COPE guidelines for publication ethics.

Image Manipulation

Digital images included in submitted papers will be analyzed for evidence of manipulation in violation of the guidelines outlined below. If a manuscript is found to be manipulated in a way that breaches these guidelines, the publication may choose to reject the article, retract the article, or both. Nothing may be altered, concealed, moved, removed, or added to a person's appearance. Figure structure (i.e. dividing lines) and the figure legend should make it clear how photos from different regions of the same gel or from different gels, fields, or exposures are grouped together.

Any adjustments to the image's luminance, contrast, or color balance that do not obscure, eliminate, or mislead from the original are allowed, as long as they are applied to every pixel in the image. Modifications to the non-linear settings (like adjusting the gamma) should be noted in the figure's caption. If the editor has concerns during or after peer review, they will ask for the raw data to compare with the final statistics.

Without the primary source materials, the submission may be rejected, or in the event of a published article, the article may be retracted. Data that has been manipulated in any way that affects its interpretation will be disregarded. A report will be made to the author's school if any inappropriate behavior is suspected (s).


Before publishing an article, the journals published by MAP run it through Turnitin, a plagiarism detection service. We will follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) if plagiarism is found.

Plagiarism encompasses, without limitation:

Copying text directly from other sources
stealing concepts, images, or data from another source
Reusing text from previously published works
Using an idea from another source with minor linguistic modifications

Submissions that have been found to include plagiarized material during the peer review process may be rejected. We reserve the right to make corrections or even retract previously published work if post-publication plagiarism is identified. Our policy is to report any instances of plagiarism to the writers' home institutions either before or after publication.

Corrections and Withdrawals

Corrective or retracted works published by MAP are extremely rare occurrences yet are necessary for the integrity of the scholarly record.

Errata and retractions will be published as separate articles, with a conspicuous link from the original article directing readers to the Erratum/Retraction article as is customary in the academic world. Whether an article is corrected or retracted, both versions remain in the public domain and are indexed thoroughly. In the odd case that content is deemed to breach certain rights or to be defamatory, we may be obliged to delete it from our website and archive sites.

Adding a comment to a published article allows the original author(s) to make any necessary changes. Only if the changes do not affect the article's findings and conclusions is this practice permissible.


When a co-author drops out of a paper after it has been published, an Erratum is issued. For additional information, read our Authorship policy.


Sometimes it's necessary to retract a publication when there's been a major breach of trust in the paper's underlying scientific findings. When this occurs, MAP shall follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). There is a comprehensive index with direct links to the original versions of all retracted articles.

Avoiding the Use of AI Tools to Write Scientific Papers

At MAP, we strongly advise authors against employing AI tools or language models, such as ChatGPT or similar technologies, to generate scientific papers. Although these AI tools have demonstrated impressive capabilities in producing text that resembles human writing, their application in scientific research raises concerns regarding the adherence to ethical publishing practices and the preservation of scientific integrity.

As an academic press dedicated to upholding the highest standards of scholarly publishing, we are aligned with the principles set forth by COPE. COPE emphasizes the significance of authorship, accountability, and transparency in scientific publishing, and we urge authors who submit to MAP to adhere to these guidelines.

The utilization of AI tools to generate scientific papers can compromise these fundamental principles as it may result in inadequate attribution, intellectual rigor, and validation of research findings. By refraining from using AI tools in the process of writing scientific papers, authors ensure the following:

  1. Authorship is properly attributed: AI tools may generate text that resembles human-authored content, potentially blurring the lines of authorship. Authors must take personal responsibility for the content they submit to MAP, ensuring that they have contributed to and can be held accountable for the scientific work presented.
  2. Scientific rigor is maintained: Scientific research requires a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, critical analysis of existing literature, and the application of sound methodologies. Relying solely on AI tools to generate scientific papers may bypass these essential components, compromising the rigor and validity of the research.
  3. Transparency and ethical considerations are addressed: Transparency is crucial in scientific publishing, and authors should provide clear and accurate descriptions of their research process, methods, and data. Using AI tools to generate scientific papers may hinder the ability to explain and justify the research process adequately, potentially raising concerns about data privacy, bias, or the reproducibility of results.
  4. Collaboration and authorship guidelines are respected: Collaborative research fosters collective knowledge and innovation. Using AI tools to generate scientific papers can overshadow the valuable contributions of collaborators, leading to potential conflicts regarding authorship and contributorship.

At MAP, we are committed to promoting responsible and ethical publishing practices. We urge authors submitting their work to our journals to actively engage in the research and writing process, ensuring that their scientific papers reflect their expertise, insights, and intellectual efforts.

By adhering to these guidelines and avoiding the use of AI tools in scientific paper writing, authors can maintain the highest standards of scientific integrity and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in their respective fields.

For more information on COPE's guidelines and best practices for ethical publishing, authors are encouraged to visit the COPE website (