Journal policies on authorship and contributor-ship:

Medphoenix-JNMC adheres to the policy published and regularly updated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). For detailed and updated information please visit ICMJE.
All authors should meet all four following criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

  1. Substantial contributions to the conception, design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  2. Drafting the work or critical revision for important intellectual content; AND
  3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The individuals who had contributed to the study but do not meet all the above four criteria of authorship should be acknowledged in the acknowledgment section.

Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research itself does not account for authorship.
Medphoenix-JNMC wishes any individual who meets the criteria for authorship to be not excluded.
Medphoenix-JNMC encourages the use of ORCID ID (digital identifier) for all the authors at the time of submission. To get ORCID IDs, please log on to

Change of affiliation
If an author's affiliation has changed during the course of the work, the author may either list the affiliation at the time that the research (or most significant portion of the research) was conducted, or their current affiliation, or both. For clarity, the change of affiliation can be explained in an acknowledgments section

Alteration to authorship
Any change in authors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, a change of order to the authors’ names or a change to the attribution of contributions. Any alterations must be explained to the editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Deceased Authors
Deceased persons deemed appropriate as authors should be included with a death dagger (†) next to the author's name, and a footnote stating that the author is deceased and giving the date of their death e.g. †Deceased 10 July 2021.

Patient consent and confidentiality
If an article contains personal medical information including x-rays, photos, etc, the patient’s consent is necessary for publication of such details. If consent cannot be obtained for whatever reason, then Medphoenix will anonymize the details as much as possible.

Corrections to published work
Authors are requested to inform the journal of any errors they have noticed (or have been informed of) in their article once published.
Corrections are made at the journal's discretion. The correction procedure depends on the publication stage of the article.

Medphoenix reserves the right to decline any submitted advertisement or to discontinue publication of any advertisement previously accepted. Products or services closely related to medical practice, medical education, professional development, or health care delivery are eligible for advertising. Consumer products and non-financial services that are offered by responsible advertisers and that are of interest to physicians may be eligible. Drugs, medical devices, alcoholic beverages, and tobacco are not eligible for advertisement.

Editor Responsibilities toward Readers and the Scientific Community
Evaluate all articles to ensure the evidence readers need to evaluate the article’s conclusion.
Provide references to articles.
Provide author contact information.
Ensure authorship criteria are met.
Make all authors responsible for the content of their article.
Disclose all relevant conflicts of interest.
Ensure that research and publication malpractices are neutralized.
Promote discussion on the scientific merits of a paper.

Complaints and Appeals
The following applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about the failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers, and complaints about publication ethics.
The complaint should in the first instance be handled by the executive editor responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If no publishing contact is identified send the query to  

 Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection

  1. The Executive Editor or individual editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether
    - The decision to reject should stand;
    - Another independent opinion is required
    - The appeal should be considered.
    The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate.

Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

  1. Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review 
    The Executive Editor together with the assistant editors (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures as soon as possible.
  2. Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct
    The Executive Editor or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher via their in-house contact for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Post-publication discussions and corrections
We are committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record and thoroughly investigate concerns that are directly raised with us by authors and readers.  Authors are always given an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. We may request original unprocessed data and consult with experts in the course of an investigation.
Depending on the seriousness of the issues, the following outcomes may ensue:

  • If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the issues: a correction, erratum, or addendum may be issued, an Editor’s Note or Editorial Expression of Concern may be issued; these are typically followed by a second notification once the investigation concludes
  • The article may be retracted.
    An article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis, and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction. The original article is marked as retracted but a PDF version remains available to readers, and the retraction statement is bi-directionally linked to the original published paper.
  • The author’s institution may be informed if we identify potentially serious issues.