Applis follows best practice guidelines in research reporting in accordance with “COPE publication ethics” for promoting research integrity. Therefore, we expect researchers to adhere with its mandatory code of conduct for ensuring the accurate and responsible research, as it is a direct reflection of quality work that helps in fostering efficient and sustainable publishing system.
All Applis journals follows COPE guidelines in addressing any issues of scientific correction with regards to Authorship, duplicate & redundant publication, conflict of interest, research misconduct, editorial independence, plagiarism & copy rights and Obligation to clinical registration.


An “author” is generally considered to be someone who has made substantial intellectual contribution to a published study. Applis recommends authors to publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study.
Applis recommends authors to adhere to the principles of authorship policy which is in accordance with the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines.
The ICMJE states that authorship credit should be based on the following criteria.
icon1 Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
icon1Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
icon1 Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
icon1Final approval of the version to be published.
All those designated as authors should meet all the above criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data or general supervision of the research group does not justify authorship.
Individuals who participated in the development of a manuscript but do not qualify as an author should be acknowledged. Organizations that provided support in terms of funding and/or other resources should also be acknowledged.
Changes in authorship
Whenever there is a need to make changes in the authorship of a manuscript or a published article, the changes will be implemented according to committee on publication ethics (COPE) specification. Only corresponding authors can make request for a change in authorship.

Overlapping Publications

Duplicate Submission
Authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal. The rationale for this standard is the potential for disagreement when two (or more) journals claim the right to publish a manuscript that has been submitted simultaneously to more than one journal, and the possibility that two or more journals will unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake the work of peer review, edit the same manuscript, and publish the same article.
Duplicate Publication
Duplicate publication is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published, without clear, visible reference to the previous publication. Duplicate publication of original research is particularly problematic because it can result in inadvertent double-counting of data or inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study, which distorts the available evidence.
Acceptable Secondary Publication
Secondary publication of material published in other journals or online may be justifiable and beneficial, especially when intended to disseminate important information to the widest possible audience (e.g., guidelines produced by government agencies and professional organizations in the same or a different language).

Secondary publication for various other reasons may also be justifiable provided the following conditions are met:

icon1 The authors have received approval from the editors of both journals (the editor concerned with secondary publication must have access to the primary version).
icon1 The priority of the primary publication is respected by a publication interval negotiated by both editors with the authors.
icon1The paper for secondary publication is intended for a different group of readers; an abbreviated version could be sufficient.
icon1The secondary version faithfully reflects the data and interpretations of the primary version.
icon1The secondary version informs readers, peers, and documenting agencies that the paper has been published in whole or in part elsewhere—for example, with a note that might read, “This article is based on a study first reported in the [journal title, with full reference]”—and the secondary version cites the primary reference.
icon1The title of the secondary publication should indicate that it is a secondary publication (complete or a bridged republication or translation) of a primary publication. Of note, the NLM does not consider translations to be “republications” and does not cite or index them when the original article was published in a journal that is indexed in MEDLINE.
Data Analysis/ Same Database
If editors receive manuscripts from separate research groups or from the same group analyzing the same data set (for example, from a public database, or systematic reviews or meta-analyses of the same evidence), the manuscripts should be considered independently because they may differ in their analytic methods, conclusions, or both. If the data interpretation and conclusions are similar, it may be reasonable although not mandatory for editors to give preference to the manuscript submitted first. Editors might consider publishing more than one manuscript that overlap in this way because different analytical approaches may be complementary and equally valid, but manuscripts based upon the same dataset should add substantially to each other to warrant consideration for publication as separate papers, with appropriate citation of previous publications from the same dataset to allow for transparency.
Declaration by Authors
When submitting a paper, the author should always make a full statement to the editor about all submissions and previous reports that might be regarded as redundant or duplicate publication of the same or very similar work. The author should alert the editor if the work includes topics about which a previous report has been published. Any such work should be referred to and referenced in the new paper. Copies of such material should be included with the submitted paper to help the editor decide how to handle the matter.

Scientific Misconduct

Scientific misconduct includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images; and plagiarism. Some people consider failure to publish the results of clinical trials and other human studies a form of scientific misconduct.
When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are otherwise raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the editor should initiate appropriate procedures detailed by such committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures.
If the procedures involve an investigation at the authors’ institution, the editor should seek to discover the outcome of that investigation, notify readers of the outcome if appropriate, and if the investigation proves scientific misconduct, publish a retraction of the article.
Editors may ask the author’s institution to assure them of the validity of earlier work published in their journals, or they may retract it.
Expressions of concern:

Journal Editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

There is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
There is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
It is believed that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
An investigation is under way but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain).
Sources of support for the work, including sponsor names along with explanations of the role of those sources if any in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; the decision to submit the report for publication; or a statement declaring that the supporting source had no such involvement; and Whether the authors had access to the study data, with an explanation of the nature and extent of access, including whether access is on-going.
Editorial policy in disclosing conflict of interest statement
We the Applis publisher minimize the bias in clinical research by recommending all authors to disclose the relationship or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work.
Author’s declaration Statement:
Authors are requested to disclose conflict of interest statements with detail description regarding financial and non-financial disclosures at the time of manuscript submission.
Peer Reviewers:
Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.

Editorial Independence

Journals are encouraged to establish an independent editorial advisory board to help the editor establish and maintain editorial policy. Editors should seek input as needed from a broad array of advisers, such as reviewers, editorial staff, an editorial board, and readers, to support editorial decisions and potentially controversial expressions of opinion, and owners should ensure that appropriate insurance is obtained in the event of legal action against the editors, and should ensure that legal advice is available.
When necessary. If legal problems arise, the editor should inform their legal adviser and their owner and/or publisher as soon as possible. Editors should defend the confidentiality of authors and peer-reviewers (names and reviewer comments) in accordance with ICMJE policy. Editors should take all reasonable steps to check the facts in journal commentary, including that in news sections and social media postings, and should ensure that staff working for the journal adhere to best journalistic practices including contemporaneous note-taking and seeking a response from all parties when possible before publication. Such practices in support of truth and public interest may be particularly relevant in defense against legal allegations of libel.
To secure editorial freedom in practice, the editor should have direct access to the highest level of ownership, not to a delegated manager or administrative officer.

Editors and editors’ organizations are obliged to support the concept of editorial freedom and to draw major transgressions of such freedom to the attention of the international medical, academic, and lay community.

Plagiarism & Copyrights

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others’ research proposals and manuscripts.
Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
icon1 Verbatim copying of another’s work and submitting it as one’s own.
icon1 Verbatim copying of significant portions of text from a single source.
icon1 Mixing verbatim copied material from multiple sources (“patchwork copying”). This could range from 1 or 2 paragraphs to significant portions consisting of several paragraphs.
icon1 Changing key words and phrases but retaining the essential content of the source as a framework.
icon1 Rephrasing of the text’s original wording and/or structure and submitting it as one’s own.
icon1 Mixing slightly rephrased material from multiple sources and presenting what has been published already as new.
icon1 The work is cited, but the cited portions are not clearly identified. This can be combined with copied parts of text without citation.
If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we reserve the right to issue a correction or retract the paper, as appropriate.

Retraction or Corrections

The journal should publish a correction as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication; the correction should be on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print.
Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing. The journal should post the new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date(s) on which the changes were made. The journal should archive all prior versions of the article. This archive can be either directly accessible to readers or can be made available to the reader on request.
Previous electronic versions should prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article.
The citation should be to the most recent version. Errors serious enough to invalidate a paper’s findings may require retraction.
Journal Editors should consider retracting a publication if:
icon1There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct or honest error
icon1 The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification
icon1 It constitutes plagiarism
icon1 It reports unethical research
Responsibilities of Authors in promoting research integrity with due corrections & Retractions.

Privacy & Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted to journals are privileged communications that are authors’ private, confidential property, and authors may be harmed by premature disclosure of any or all of a manuscript’s details.
Editors, therefore, must not share information about manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Requests from third parties to use manuscripts and reviews for legal proceedings should be politely refused, and editors should do their best not to provide such confidential material should it be subpoenaed.
Editors must also make clear that reviewers should keep manuscripts, associated material, and the information they contain strictly confidential.
Reviewers must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy paper copies of manuscripts and delete electronic copies after submitting their reviews. Protection of human subjects and animals in research.

Clinical Trial Registration

All Applis Journals adheres to ICMJE’s Clinical Trials Registration Statement. All clinical trials published in Applis journals must be registered in a public trials registry at or before the onset of participant enrolment. Manuscripts should include the exact URL and unique identification number for the trial registration at the time of submission. This information will be published in the article and we ask that you include the URL and identification number on the title page of your manuscript. A list of recommended registries can be found on the ICMJE website. Results posted in the same clinical trials registry in which the primary registration resides will not be considered prior publication if they are presented in the form of a brief abstract (

Applis journals encourages authors to include a statement that indicates that the results have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and to update the registration with the full journal citation when the results are published.
Registration of Systematic Reviews
The prospective registration of systematic reviews is welcomed and we encourage all authors to register their systematic reviews in a suitable registry such as PROSPERO. Please include the registration number in the last line of the manuscript abstract.
Standards of Reporting
We recommend all authors to follow the correct standards of reporting regarding biomedical research. Please refer to EQUATOR for guidelines for health research and MIBBI for guidelines and tools for bioscience reporting. Authors are strongly encouraged to use these guidelines as a checklist when writing their manuscripts.
Other available checklists include CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, STROBE for observational studies, MOOSE for meta analyses of observational studies, STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies, RATS for qualitative studies, and CHEERS for economic evaluations.
Authors of systematic reviews must provide a link in the Methods section that shows all details of the search strategy. Refer to Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook for examples of the presentation of search strategies.
Authors must use standardized gene nomenclature. The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee details human gene symbols and names. Information on other species can be found at www.genenames.org/about/faq#otherspecies; the Human Genome Variation Society provides guidelines on mutation nomenclature.
Authors are expected to comply with current field-specific standards regarding the preparation and recording of data (www.biosharing.org/standards/), while also maintaining strict patient confidentiality. In addition, when using unpublished data, authors must make contact with the owners of the data before starting their own research.
Human and Animal Testing
All human or animal studies should be approved or exempted by the appropriate institutional human and/or animal subject review committee, or if no formal ethics committee is available, are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. This approval or exemption should be stated in the Methods section of the article.
When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals are followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.

Ethics and Consent

Human and Animal Testing
Any investigations involving humans and animals should be approved by the institutional review board and animal care committee, respectively, of the institution where the study took place. Applis Journals will not consider any studies involving humans or animals without the appropriate approval. 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). Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework.
Consent to participate
For all research involving human subjects, 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.

Withdrawal Policy

Applis Publishers are committed to providing high-quality articles and uphold the publication ethics to advance the intellectual agenda of science. We expect our authors to comply with, best practice in publication ethics as well as in quality of their articles.
Few of the authors request withdrawal of manuscript from the publication process after submission or after publication. In some instances the request for withdrawal is made when the manuscript is only a few days away from publication in the journal. This may cause the time waste by the editors, reviewers and the editorial staff.
To evade gratuitous withdrawal of manuscripts Appllis publishers declared the below withdrawal policy. The corresponding author or co-authors should address the below statement before sending a request for withdrawal.

All authors include corresponding and co-authors should confirm the number of authors, authorship, approval and integrity of the manuscript before submission. In case of any differences of opinion, address the concerns of all the authors before submitting the manuscript for publication.

Research students or Researchers should take prior permission from their guides and professors before sending/submitting their manuscripts in Applis publishers.

Manuscript is appropriately withdrawn from any previous publisher (if submitted).

It is unacceptable to withdraw a manuscript from a journal because it is being accepted by another journal.

Before submitting the manuscript authors should carefully check the facts and data presented in the manuscripts are accurate and error-free.

All authors need to agree for publishing the articles on the specific journal before submission.

Unethical withdrawal
Advanced stage in the editorial process, when peer reviews were near completion was unacceptable unless there are compelling reasons.

If the author withdraws a manuscript after publication, the article publication charges, if paid by the authors, will not be refunded.

If the authors do not reply to communication from the editorial office, even after multiple reminders, at any stage of the publication process; Applis publishers holds all rights to disclose the conduct of the authors and content of the manuscript without further approval from the authors, and cannot be held responsible for the consequences arising from it.

Withdrawal of a manuscript will be permitted only for the most compelling and unavoidable reasons. For withdrawal of a manuscript authors need to submit an “Article withdrawal Form”, signed by all authors mentioning the reason for withdrawal to the Editorial Office. The form is available from the editorial office of the journal. Authors must not assume that their manuscript has been withdrawn until they have received appropriate notification to this effect from the editorial office.

In a case where a manuscript has taken more than six months time for review process, that allows the author to withdraw manuscript without paying any charges.

Manuscript withdrawal charges
The author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript without paying any withdrawal penalty, if the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript, within 48 hours of submission.

If the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript, after the peer review process or in the production stage (Early Release or Ahead of publishing) or published online; then authors need to make a withdrawal penalty.

Applis publishers Editorial Office will provide the corresponding author a formal letter of Manuscript Withdrawal. Withdrawal of manuscripts is only allowed after withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the Applis publishers Editorial Office.

As per the policy, we declare that the withdrawal charges are applicable in case of withdrawal.