Ethical Policy

Peer Review, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Peer- Review

Submission is considered on the conditions that papers are previously unpublished and are not offered simultaneously elsewhere; that authors have read and approved the content, and all authors have also declared all competing interests; and that the work complies with the Ethical Approval and has been conducted under internationally accepted ethical standards. If ethical misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with the relevant international rules of publication ethics (i.e., COPE guidelines).
Editorial policies of the journal are conducted as stated in the rules recommended by the Council of Science Editors and reflected in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Accordingly, authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to adhere to the best practice guidelines on ethical behavior contained in this statement.

Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes initial scrutiny by the journal's secretary. This preliminary assessment focuses on key criteria such as ethical approval, order of the manuscript, and proper citation with corresponding references. This step serves as a crucial checkpoint to ascertain whether the submitted work aligns with the journal's standards.

Following the initial assessment by the journal's secretary and subsequent clearance, the manuscript proceeds to the next stage—review by the Editor-in-Chief. This pivotal stage entails a thorough and comprehensive evaluation, leveraging the Editor-in-Chief's specialized expertise to assess the overall coherence and relevance of the manuscript.

The Editor-in-Chief, as required, makes a decision on whether to subject any submitted manuscript to the rigorous process of double-blinded peer-review within the journal. This decision is often made in consultation with trusted assistant editors or section editors who possess expertise in the relevant field. However, the Editor-in-Chief bears the responsibility of determining whether to reject an article without initiating the peer review process or to forward it to external reviewers for evaluation.

If approved for peer review by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is further subjected to scrutiny by a minimum of two external reviewers. These external experts offer independent and objective assessments of the content. This external review process is integral to upholding the rigorous standards of Pelviperineology across all types of articles.

All research articles are interpreted by a statistical editor.

Human and Animal Rights

For the experimental, clinical and drug human studies, approval by ethical committee and a statement on the adherence of the study protocol to the international agreements (World Medical Association of Helsinki “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects,” amended October 2013) are required. In experimental animal studies, the authors should indicate that the procedures followed were by animal rights (Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals), and they should obtain animal ethics committee approval. The Ethics Committee approval document should be submitted to the Pelviperineology together with the manuscript.
For persons under 18 years of age, please provide a consent form that includes both parents' signatures or of the person's legal guardian or supervisor.

The approval of the ethics committee, statement on the adherence to international guidelines mentioned above and that the patient's informed consent is obtained should be indicated in the `Material and Method` section and is required for case reports whenever data/media used could reveal the identity of the patient. The declaration of the conflict of interest between authors, institutions, acknowledgement of any financial or material support, aid is mandatory for authors submitting a manuscript, and the statement should appear at the end of the manuscript. Reviewers are required to report if any potential conflict of interest exists between the reviewer and authors, institutions.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct

This journal uses "iThenticate" to screen all submissions for plagiarism before publication. This journal does not accept articles that indicate a similarity rate of more than 15%, according to iThenticate reports.

It is essential that authors avoid all forms of plagiarism and ethical misconduct as represented below.

Plagiarism: To Republish whole or part of a content in another author's publication without attribution.

Fabrication: To publish data and findings/results that do not exist.

Duplication: Using data from another publication that includes republishing an article in different languages.

Salamisation: Creating multiple publications by supernaturally splitting the results of a study.

Data Manipulation/Falsification: Manipulating or deliberately distorting research data to give a false impression.

We disapprove of such unethical practices as plagiarism, fabrication, duplication, data manipulation/falsification and salamisation and efforts to influence the review process with such practices as gifting authorship, inappropriate acknowledgements, and references in line with the COPE flowcharts.

Submitted manuscripts are also subjected to the evaluation of plagiarism, duplicate publication by automatic software. Authors are obliged to acknowledge if they published study results in whole or in part in the form of abstracts.

Use of Large Language Models and Generative AI Tools

"AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements. Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.” COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI tools. Detailed information about the statement can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author

After reviewing the COPE statement, the editors of Pelviperineology have decided that papers should include a statement in a section called “Declaration Regarding the Use of AI and AI-Assisted Technologies” to let readers know if AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the writing process. It's important to remember that all authors are responsible for the content of their work. This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, or references (such as Mendeley, EndNote, Zotero, and others). If there is nothing to declare, there is no need to add a statement.

It is suggested that authors follow this format when preparing their statement:

During the preparation of this work, the author(s) utilized [NAME OF TOOL(S) USED] to [DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE TOOL(S) WERE UTILIZED AND HOW THE VALIDITY OF THE OUTPUTS WAS EVALUATED]. After carefully reviewing and editing the content as necessary, full responsibility for the publication's content is taken by the author(s). This incorporation of AI tool usage primarily impacted [SPECIFY WHICH ASPECTS OF THE STUDY, ARTICLE CONTENTS, DATA, OR SUPPORTING FILES WERE AFFECTED/GENERATED].

Example:
During the preparation of this work, the author(s) utilized OpenAI's ChatGPT to generate summaries of research articles related to the topic. These summaries were evaluated by comparing them to manually written summaries by experts in the field. Upon confirming the accuracy and relevance of the generated summaries, they were integrated into the literature review section of the manuscript. After carefully reviewing and editing the content as necessary, full responsibility for the publication's content is taken by the author(s). This incorporation of AI tool usage primarily impacted the efficiency of literature review process and the comprehensiveness of the gathered research insights.

A. DUTIES OF PUBLISHER:

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
The publisher will take all appropriate measures to modify the article in question, in close cooperation with the editors, in cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, disclosure, or retraction of the affected work in the most severe case. Together with the editors, the publisher will take reasonable steps to detect and prevent the publication of articles in which research misconduct occurs and will under no circumstances promote or knowingly allow such abuse to occur.

Editorial Autonomy

Pelviperineology is committed to ensuring the autonomy of editorial decisions without influence from anyone or commercial partners.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Pelviperineology protects the property and copyright of the articles published in the journal and maintains each article's published version of the record. The journal provides the integrity and transparency of each published article.

Scientific Misconduct

Pelviperineology's publisher always takes all appropriate measures regarding fraudulent publication or plagiarism.

B. DUTIES OF EDITORS:

Decision on Publication and Responsibility
The editor of the journal keeps under control everything in the journal and strives to meet the needs of readers and authors. The editor is also responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published and guided by the policies subjected to legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor might discuss with reviewers while making publication decisions. The editor is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. Editor ought to provide a fair and appropriate peer-review process.

Objectivity

Articles that are submitted to the journal are always evaluated without any prejudice.
Confidentiality

The editor must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than editorial staff, reviewers, and publisher.

Conflicts of Interest and Disclosure

Pelviperineology does not allow any conflicts of interest between the parties such as authors, reviewers and editors. Unpublished materials in a submitted article must not be used by anyone without the express written assent of the author.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Authors are obliged to notify the journal's editors or publisher immediately and to cooperate with them to correct or retract the article if significant errors or inaccuracies are detected in the published work. If the editors or publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a material error or inaccuracy, the authors must promptly correct or retract the article or provide the journal editors with evidence of the accuracy of the article.

C. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS:

Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts without origin, gender, sexual orientation or political philosophy of the authors. Reviewers also ensure a fair blind peer review of the submitted manuscripts for evaluation.

Confidentiality

All the information relative to submitted articles is kept confidential. The reviewers must not be discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

The reviewers have no conflict of interest regarding parties such as authors, funders, editors, etc.

Contribution to editor

Reviewers help the editor in making decisions and may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Objectivity

They always do objective judgment evaluation. The reviewers express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers ought to identify a relevant published study that the authors have not cited. Reviewers also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

D. DUTIES OF AUTHORS:

Reporting Standards

A submitted manuscript should be original, and the authors ensure that the manuscript has never been published previously in any journal. Data of the research ought to be represented literally in the article. A manuscript ought to include adequate detail and references to allow others to replicate the study.

Originality

The authors who want to submit their study to the journal must ensure that their study is entirely original. The words and sentences getting from the literature should be appropriately cited.

Multiple Publications

Authors should not submit the same study for publishing in any other journals. Simultaneous submission of the same study to more than one journal is unacceptable and constitutes unethical behaviour.

Acknowledgement of Sources Convenient acknowledgement of the study of others has to be given. Authors ought to cite publications that have been efficient in determining the study. All of the sources that used the process of the study should be remarked.

Authorship of a Paper

Authorship of a paper ought to be limited to those who have made a noteworthy contribution to the study. If others have participated in the research, they should be listed as contributors. Authorship also includes a corresponding author who is in communication with the editor of a journal. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in a paper.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All sources of financial support should be disclosed. All authors ought to disclose a meaningful conflict of interest in the process of forming their study. Any financial grants or other support received for a submitted study from individuals or institutions should be disclosed to the Editorial Board of the Pelviperineology. The ICMJE Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form should be filled in and submitted by all contributing authors to disclose a potential conflict of interest. The journal’s Editorial Board determines cases of a potential conflict of interest of the editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of COPE and ICMJE guidelines.

Conditions that provide financial or personal benefit bring about a conflict of interest. The reliability of the scientific process and the published articles is directly related to the objective consideration of conflicts of interest during the planning, implementation, writing, evaluation, editing, and publication of scientific studies.

Financial relations are the most easily identified conflicts of interest, and it is inevitable that they will undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and the science. These conflicts can be caused by individual relations, academic competition, or intellectual approaches. The authors should refrain as much as possible from making agreements with sponsors in the opinion of gaining profit or any other advantage that restrict their ability to access all data of the study or analyze, interpret, prepare, and publish their articles In order to prevent conflicts of interest, editors should refrain from bringing together those who may have any relationship between them during the evaluation of the studies. The editors, who make the final decision about the articles, should not have any personal, professional or financial ties with any of the issues they are going to decide. Authors should inform the editorial board concerning potential conflicts of interest to ensure that their articles will be evaluated within the framework of ethical principles through an independent assessment process.

If one of the editors is an author in any manuscript, the editor is excluded from the manuscript evaluation process. In order to prevent any conflict of interest, the article evaluation process is carried out as double-blinded. Because of the double-blinded evaluation process, except for the Editor-in-Chief, none of the editorial board members, international advisory board members, or reviewers is informed about the authors of the manuscript or institutions of the authors.

Our publication team works devotedly to ensuring that the evaluation process is conducted impartially, considering all these situations.