Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and endorses the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals as well as the GPP3 guidelines regarding authorship.

Submission of a manuscript to Journal of Angiotherapy implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies.

Return to Index

2. Authorship

Please see author guideline for detials.

3. Publication Ethics

To ensure scientific publications are of the highest quality, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) have established a series of international ethical standards and guidelines. These guidelines provide advice to editors and publishers on all aspects of publication ethics and, in particular, how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. COPE also acts as a forum for editors and publishers of peer-reviewed journals to discuss all aspects of publication ethics.

Integrative Biomedical Research (Former Journal of Angiotherapy) Editors comply the COPE’s Responsible research publication: international standards for authors to maintain a balanced representation of research topics and contributors.

Integrative Biomedical Research (Former Journal of Angiotherapy) Editors comply the COPE’s Core Practices and Best Practice Guidelines to ensure the highest standards in publication ethics are upheld. All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Angiotherapy undergo thorough pre-publication screening for issues relating to patient consent, patient identity protection and animal ethical approval. Authors must be aware of several important publication ethical issues when submitting an article to Journal of Angiotherapy for publication. These issues are outlined below:

Return to Index

4. Patient identity/Informed consent

Integrative Biomedical Research (formerly Journal of Angiotherapy) requires all authors to confirm that written informed consent has been obtained from patients or participants—or, when participants are minors under 18 years of age, from their parent or legal guardian—for the use of any personal details included in research, clinical trials, or case studies. Manuscripts containing data, images, or videos relating to identifiable individuals or groups must also be accompanied by written consent for publication of these details.

Authors must ensure that all identifiable patient information is anonymized, and any nonessential identifying details are omitted from the manuscript. This includes, but is not limited to, names, addresses, places of employment, dates of birth, telephone numbers, email addresses, medical records, patient or account numbers, license numbers, IP addresses, and any full or comparable photographic images or videos.

All authors are expected to read and adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines on the protection of research participants.

When informed consent has been obtained, this must be clearly stated in the published article. Authors should be prepared to provide documentation of consent if requested by the editor. Consent forms must include all standard elements typically required for patient consent. The World Health Organization (WHO) offers useful informed consent form templates that investigators can adapt to suit their specific study needs.

It is the responsibility of authors to securely archive all patient consent documentation and to inform the journal accordingly. Should any concerns arise regarding patient identification, the publisher of Integrative Biomedical Research will serve as the final authority.

Return to Index

5. Ethical approval of human research

All planning, conduct, and reporting of human research must strictly adhere to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. This requirement applies to all studies involving human subjects, medical records, or human tissues. Authors are expected to obtain approval to conduct their research from an independent local, regional, or national review board, such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee.

Any decisions or approvals granted by these committees must not compromise or waive the protections for research participants established by the Declaration of Helsinki. In cases where there is uncertainty about whether the research fully complies with the Declaration, authors must provide a clear justification supporting the review board’s decision.

A statement confirming review board approval must be included within the manuscript.

Return to Index

6. Ethical approval for use of human cell lines and tissues

Human cell lines and tissues are classified as human biospecimens. Therefore, authors are kindly requested to include a statement in their manuscripts specifying the relevant ethical approvals and patient consent obtained for the use of these materials in their research. This requirement is particularly important when the human material is potentially identifiable, such as specimens stored in biobanks or similar repositories.

If the cell lines or tissues were sourced from an accredited commercial provider, authors should provide details of this. In cases where ethical approval or patient consent was not obtained, a clear explanation must be included.

Return to Index

7. Case reports/Case series/Clinical datasets

Integrative Biomedical Research (formerly Journal of Angiotherapy) defines a case report as the detailed documentation of the diagnosis, treatment, and post-treatment follow-up of a single patient. In contrast, a case series comprises multiple case reports involving patients who received similar treatments. A clinical dataset refers to a collection of well-defined variables gathered during routine patient care or as part of a clinical trial, including electronic health records, administrative data, patient registries, and clinical trial datasets.

In some circumstances, case reports or case series involving fewer than three patients may not require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, as such small case series may not be considered generalized research or contribute broadly to medical knowledge. However, this exemption depends on local institutional, national, or regional regulations. Authors are responsible for ensuring compliance with the ethical and regulatory requirements specific to their institution and country.

Except where explicitly exempted, all case reports, case series, and clinical datasets must have prior IRB approval. Authors should note that IRB approval cannot be granted retroactively. A clear statement confirming IRB approval must be included in the manuscript.

Details of Journals’ Best Practices for Ensuring Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports can be found on COPEs website.

Return to Index

8. Ethical approval of animal research
All manuscripts involving animal research must show the work followed international, national and institutional guidelines for the ethical and legal treatment of animals. Authors must show the study was approved by an ethics review committee from the same institution at which the study was conducted. For non-human primate studies and veterinary studies using client-owned animals, it must be demonstrated the work meets the standards set out in NC3Rs primates guidelines and follows veterinary care best practices guidelines. For veterinary studies informed client consent must also be provided. Journal of Angiotherapy advises all authors conducting animal research to read and follow NC3Rs ARRIVE guidelines. The guidelines set out the currently accepted procedures for the reporting of research using animals and are available in various translations including Chinese Mandarin. A statement declaring the ethical review committee’s approval must be included in the manuscript.

Return to Index

9. Ethics Approval and Consent Requirements for Research
Ethics approval from a formally constituted review board—such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee—is required for all studies involving human participants, medical records, or human biological samples, including retrospective patient data. Informed consent should be obtained from participants whenever possible. If obtaining consent is not feasible, the IRB must determine whether the use of such data is ethically acceptable. A clear statement regarding the IRB's decision should be included in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript.

For review articles and meta-analyses, ethics approval is not required, as such approvals would have been obtained by the authors of the original studies being analyzed. However, authors should still ensure that all data used in their work were ethically obtained in the original research.

When using human samples obtained from commercial providers, ethics approval is still necessary. This requirement ensures that all research involving human materials meets ethical standards, regardless of the source. If samples or cells were gifted or sourced from a non-accredited provider, the study must be approved by a recognized institutional ethics board, and confirmation of such approval should be provided.

In cases where a formal ethics review committee is not available, researchers should adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. If a study is deemed exempt from ethics approval, a formal exemption statement from an ethics committee is required and should be included in the Materials and Methods section.

For studies involving animals, ethical approval is required when live animals are used. The manuscript must specify the committee that approved the research and cite the relevant international, national, or institutional animal welfare guidelines that were followed. When reporting on veterinary clinical cases involving client-owned animals, formal ethics approval is not mandatory. However, researchers must follow best veterinary practices and obtain informed client consent, with a corresponding statement included in the Materials and Methods section.

In summary, all research involving human or animal subjects must comply with ethical standards, and authors are responsible for providing appropriate documentation and declarations in their manuscripts.

Return to Index

10. Peer-Review

All manuscripts submitted to Journal of Angiotherapy undergo single blind peer review. An outline of this process is available on the peer-review schematic. The assigend section Editor and Main Handling Editor or Editor-in-chief will make the final decision based on the assigned reviewers comments. Authors may lodge an appeal against an editorial decision. They should send grounds for their appeal to office@emanresearch.org. The appeal will be heard by the Editor-in-Chief in conjunction with one or more Editorial Board members or Associate Editors. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on the appeal will be final.

10.1 Portability of peer review
Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) supports thorough and efficient peer review and has put in place streamlined processes to allow for rapid peer review and avoid unnecessary re-review of revised manuscripts. In cases where a manuscript reporting sound science does not reach the interest level set for a given Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) and is rejected, the authors may be offered the option to transfer their manuscript to another Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) provided it is in scope of that journal. In such cases, the peer reviewers’ reports are also transferred to the other journal.

Before the authors are contacted regarding a possible manuscript transfer, the Editor-in-Chief may share the manuscript with the Editors-in-Chief of other Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy). Authors, who do not wish their manuscript to be shared with other Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) should mention this in their cover letter. Peer reviewers, who do not wish to have their report shared with other Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) should mention this in the confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief section of their report.

Should authors agree to have their manuscript transferred to another Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) for evaluation it does not imply that their manuscript will be accepted for publication by the other journal. In some occasions the Editor-in-Chief of the receiving journal may decide to conduct their own peer review and/or reject the manuscript.

10.2 Peer Review Process Outline

Manuscript Submission
- Author submits the manuscript to the journal.
- Editorial Office conducts an initial check for completeness and compliance with submission guidelines.
Initial Assessment
- Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or Main Handling Editor performs an initial assessment (1 week).
- The manuscript is evaluated for scope, originality, and relevance.
- Decision Point:
  - Reject if the manuscript does not meet basic criteria.
  - Proceed to Peer Review if the manuscript is deemed suitable.
Reviewer Selection
- Editor selects reviewers based on their expertise and availability.
- Typically, 2-4 reviewers are invited.
- Reviewers accept or decline the invitation.
Review Process
- Reviewers conduct a thorough evaluation of the manuscript (2-3 weeks).
- Each reviewer submits a detailed review report, including:
  - Assessment of originality, significance, methodology, and clarity.
  - Suggestions for improvement.
  - Recommendation (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).
Editorial Decision
- Editor, i.e. Section Editor and Main Handling Editor evaluate the reviewers' comments and recommendations (4 weeks).
- Decision Point:
  - Accept the manuscript as is.
  - Minor Revision required before acceptance.
  - Major Revision needed, requiring another round of review.
  - Reject the manuscript.
Author Revision
- Authors receive feedback and are requested to revise the manuscript (2 weeks).
- Revised Manuscript is submitted back to the journal.
Re-Review (if necessary)
- Editor may send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers (2 weeks).
- Reviewers assess the revisions and provide additional feedback.
Final Decision
- Main Handling Editor and Editor-in-Chief make the final decision based on the reviewers’ feedback on the revised manuscript (6 weeks).
- Decision Point:
  - Accept the manuscript.
  - Reject the manuscript if revisions are inadequate.
Copyediting and Proofreading
- Accepted Manuscript undergoes copyediting and proofreading.
- Authors review and approve the final proofs.
Publication
- Final Manuscript is published in the journal.
- Authors and readers are notified of the publication.

10.3 Peer Review Schematic Representation

Submission

→ Initial Assessment (1 week)

→ Reviewer Selection

→ Review Process (2-3 weeks)

→ Editorial Decision (4 weeks)

→ Author Revision (2 weeks)

→ Re-Review (2 weeks if any)

→ Final Decision (6 weeks)

→ Copyediting

→ Publication (8 weeks)

Return to Index

11. Special Issue

We kindly request that all manuscripts be submitted online through our user-friendly platform at https://systemcentral.emanresearch.org to streamline the submission process. You'll need to register and create an account on the website to get started. Once you've completed this step, please click on the provided link to access the submission form.

We welcome manuscript submissions up until the designated deadline. Each submission undergoes a meticulous pre-check, and those meeting the criteria proceed to our rigorous peer-review process. Approved papers will be promptly published in the journal upon acceptance and will be featured in the dedicated special volume and issue.

The Guest Editor is appointed to manage and make decisions on the special issue publication. The Guest Editor is selected based on their qualifications, commitment to editorial rigor, and availability for a specific period of time.

Our journal invites a variety of contributions, including research articles, review articles, and short communications. If you're considering submitting a planned paper, you have the option to send us a title and a concise abstract of around 250 words. This information will be announced on our website's Editorial Office section.

It's important to note that any manuscripts you submit must not have been published previously, nor should they be concurrently under review for publication elsewhere (with the exception of conference proceedings papers). The review process we employ is single-blind and rigorous to ensure the quality of the content we publish.

For comprehensive guidance on manuscript preparation and submission, we encourage you to visit our dedicated Instructions for Authors page.

Before finalizing your submission, we kindly ask you to thoroughly review our Instructions for Authors page. Please be aware that there is an Article Processing Charge (APC) associated with publication in our open-access journal, amounting to $500. To maintain a high standard of English, we recommend authors utilize our English editing service before submitting their work or during the author revision phase. Your commitment to well-formatted and excellently written submissions is greatly appreciated.

11.1 Special Issue Process Outline

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

Select a Relevant Theme: a theme that addresses current trends and gaps in research is chosen based on journal scope and interest.
Set Clear Objectives: Editors define what the special issue aims to achieve and its contribution to the field.

2. Assemble an Editorial Team

Guest Editors: Handling Editor invites experts in the field to serve as guest editors. The Guest Editor is selected based on their qualifications, commitment to editorial rigor, and availability for a specific period of time. Guest Editors make the final decision on the acceptance and rejection of articles. If there is any appeal on decision, Editor-in-Chief will make the final panel decision.
Advisory Board: Handling Editor forms an advisory board to provide guidance and lend credibility.

3. Create a Call for Papers (CFP)

Detailed CFP: Draft a detailed CFP outlining the scope, topics of interest, submission guidelines, and deadlines.
Wide Distribution: Distribute the CFP through various channels including the journal’s website, academic networks, and social media.

4. Manuscript Submission and Peer Review Process

Submission Portal: Ensure submissions are made through the journal’s official submission portal.
Rigorous Peer Review: Implement a rigorous peer review process involving multiple reviewers to ensure quality.
Transparency: Maintain transparency in the review process and communicate clearly with authors.

5. Manage the Editorial Workflow

Timely Decisions: Make timely decisions on manuscript acceptance, revisions, or rejections.
Revisions: Ensure authors make necessary revisions based on reviewer comments.
Final Decision: Make final decisions in consultation with the guest editors and editorial board.

6. Ensure Quality and Compliance

Ethical Standards: Adhere to ethical standards in publishing, including conflict of interest and plagiarism policies.
Formatting and Style: Ensure all manuscripts comply with the journal’s formatting and citation style.
Indexing Requirements: Follow guidelines for indexing in Web of Science, which include scientific rigor, editorial quality, and citation impact.

7. Prepare for Publication

Proofreading: Conduct thorough proofreading to eliminate errors.
Layout and Design: Ensure the special issue has a consistent layout and design.
Online and Print: Prepare both online and print versions if applicable.

8. Promotion and Dissemination

Launch Event: Organize a virtual or physical launch event to promote the special issue.
Marketing: Use email campaigns, social media, and academic conferences to promote the special issue.
Engage with Authors: Encourage authors to promote their articles within their networks.

9. Post-Publication Management

Monitoring Impact: Track citations, downloads, and the overall impact of the special issue.
Feedback: Gather feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers to improve future special issues.
Reporting: Provide a report on the special issue’s performance to stakeholders.

Return to Index

12. Conference Abstract

The journal publishes conference abstracts with a combined and solicited review panel. The conference abstracts are managed by the Journal's Handling Editor and a Section Editor, in collaboration with the conference committee and the society or organization review panel. The decision on abstract acceptance is based on merit, quality, scientific rigor, novelty, and the scope of the journal. However, our editorial decisions are conducted by our expert in-house editors (i.e. Section Editors, Main Handling Editor, and Editor-in-Chief) who have no affiliations to publishers or research institutes – removing any potential bias or conflict of interest.

The outline of managing the conference Proceedings is below:

1. Define the Scope and Objectives

Clear Theme: Establish a clear and focused theme or set of topics for the conference that align with current research trends.
Objectives: Define the objectives of the conference and the expected outcomes.

2. Establish a Scientific Committee

Expert Panel: Form a scientific committee comprising experts in the field to oversee the abstract review process.
Roles and Responsibilities: Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of committee members.

3. Call for Abstracts (CFA)

Detailed Announcement: Create a comprehensive CFA detailing the conference theme, submission guidelines, deadlines, and evaluation criteria.
Wide Dissemination: Distribute the CFA through the conference website, academic mailing lists, social media, and relevant journals.

4. Abstract Submission Process

Submission Portal: Use a reliable abstract submission system to manage submissions efficiently (e.g., EasyChair, Ex Ordo).
Submission Guidelines: Ensure guidelines are clear regarding format, length, and content requirements.

5. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Selection: Select qualified reviewers with relevant expertise to evaluate the abstracts.
Single-Blind Review: Implement a single-blind review process to ensure impartiality.
Evaluation Criteria: Establish clear evaluation criteria such as originality, scientific rigor, relevance to the conference theme, and clarity.

6. Abstract Acceptance and Notification

Timely Decisions: Make timely decisions on the acceptance or rejection of abstracts.
Feedback: Provide constructive feedback to authors, whether their abstracts are accepted or rejected.
Acceptance Letters: Send formal acceptance letters with information on presentation format (oral or poster), registration, and any required revisions.

7. Preparation for Presentation

Author Guidelines: Provide detailed guidelines to authors on preparing their presentations or posters.
Rehearsals: Organize rehearsal sessions if possible, to help presenters prepare.

8. Conference Proceedings Preparation

Editorial Quality: Ensure all accepted abstracts are edited for clarity and formatted according to the conference guidelines.
Proceedings Compilation: Compile the abstracts into conference proceedings, ensuring consistency and completeness.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): Assign DOIs to each abstract for ease of reference and citation.

9. Submission for Indexing

Web of Science Submission: Submit the conference proceedings to Web of Science for indexing. Ensure compliance with their criteria, which includes the scientific quality of the abstracts, editorial board standards, and the overall impact of the conference.
Compliance Check: Double-check that the proceedings meet all Web of Science requirements for conference materials.

10. Post-Conference Activities

Feedback Collection: Collect feedback from participants to improve future conferences.
Impact Monitoring: Monitor the citation and usage of the conference abstracts to gauge their impact.
Reporting: Report the outcomes and success of the conference to stakeholders and consider publishing a summary in relevant journals or platforms.

Return to Index

13. Corrigendum Policy

At Eman Research Publishing, we adhere to the principle that a published article represents a permanent scientific record. Consequently, any changes to a published article must be accompanied by a corrigendum, with a few specific exceptions outlined below.

13.1 Exceptions for Changes Without a Corrigendum

The following minor fixes may be made without issuing a corrigendum:

Layout adjustments: Minor changes or corrections to the layout.
Typos or grammatical issues: These can be fixed if they do not alter the content or meaning of a sentence. Corrections to numerical errors or typos in the title or abstract require a corrigendum as they may impact meaning.
Internal broken links: For instance, if a Multimedia Appendix does not download. However, if the error involves submission to databases (e.g., PubMed Central), a correction is required.
Minor reference corrections: Fixes that do not substantially change the reference content. We do not typically update broken links to external websites, as link rot over time is expected.

Editorial and production staff have the discretion to determine whether changes fall under these exceptions. In some cases, we may decline to make changes if the error was present in the proofs and unaddressed by the author. Authors may opt to pay a fee for minor post-publication changes.

13.2 Process for Publishing a Corrigendum

For any corrections outside the exceptions listed above, a corrigendum must be published. Authors should follow the steps below:

Submit a Request
File a request with our office via email at office@emanresearch.org detailing the issue and proposed correction.
Evaluation
We will assess the request to determine the severity and origin of the error. The following outcomes are possible:
- Publisher Error: If the error was introduced after final proofreading or overlooked during that process, the publisher will issue a corrigendum at no cost to the author.
- Discretionary Correction: For updates or corrections to errors in the original submission or oversight by the author, a fee of $190 will apply. Examples include adding acknowledgments, correcting an author's name, or fixing similar errors.
- No Action Required: If the issue does not warrant correction.
- Minor Fix Without Corrigendum: Changes qualifying under the exceptions listed above.
Submit Correction Details
Authors should submit a Word file describing the error and its correction in detail. Include both the original text and the corrected version, written in past tense.

Example:
Original: “MMAS will be used to measure adherence.”
Corrected: “XY will be used to measure adherence.”

Formatting and Metadata
- Include the subject line “Discretionary Corrigendum” and reference the original manuscript number in your email.
- Title the submission appropriately, e.g., “Correction: [Original Title]” or “Authorship Correction.”
- Ensure all author metadata (names, ORCIDs, affiliations) match the original article unless corrections are required.
- For authorship changes, provide a signed letter from all authors confirming the update.

13.3 Outcomes of a Published Corrigendum

Correction Statement: A detailed correction notice is published and linked to the original article.
Amended Article: The original article is updated with a note referencing the corrigendum.
Database Updates: Corrections are submitted to databases like PubMed Central, and metadata (e.g., author names or abstract) is updated where necessary.

13.4 Important Notes on Retractions

If significant errors or evidence of scientific misconduct are identified, the article may be retracted. For details on retraction procedures, refer to our Knowledge Base article on Retractions.

We strongly encourage authors to carefully review their work during copyediting and proofreading to minimize post-publication corrections.

Return to Index

14. Retraction Policy and Process

At Eman Research Publishing Journals (ERPJ), retractions are rare and undertaken only in specific circumstances, adhering to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Retractions are not issued merely because subsequent studies refute a paper's findings, as such developments are part of the natural progression of science. Instead, retractions are reserved for cases involving significant ethical concerns, scientific misconduct, or errors that invalidate the paper's integrity.

14.1 Circumstances Leading to Retraction

Scientific Misconduct: This includes plagiarism, falsification, fabrication of data, or duplicate publication.
Major Errors: Fundamental errors in analysis or interpretation that undermine the validity of the results.
Ethical Breaches: Violations such as lack of proper consent, conflicts of interest, or failure to comply with institutional or publication ethics.

14.2 Who Can Initiate a Retraction?

Authors: If authors identify critical errors that invalidate their study, they may request a retraction by submitting a retraction notice signed by all co-authors.
Editors/Publisher: Editors may initiate a retraction following a thorough investigation and consultation with the authors, especially in cases of proven misconduct or ethical violations.

14.3 Alternatives to Retraction

In some cases, errors can be addressed without retracting the paper:

Corrigendum: Minor errors that do not impact the study's conclusions can be corrected through a corrigendum.
Corrigendum and Republication: If errors require rewriting large portions of the manuscript, republication alongside a correction may be appropriate.
Expression of Editorial Concern: When a potential issue is under investigation, an Expression of Concern may be issued to alert readers without retracting the article.

14.4 Retraction Process

Submission of Retraction Request
- Authors: Submit a retraction request with a signed narrative retraction notice (Word document) from all co-authors, describing the issue and reason for retraction.
- Editors: Investigate concerns raised by reviewers, readers, or editorial staff.
- Submit the retraction request or supporting documentation to office@emanresearch.org.
Investigation and Review
- A multi-departmental team at ERPJ, including editors and senior leadership, reviews the case in accordance with COPE guidelines.
- For cases involving misconduct, appropriate institutional or third-party investigations may also be considered.
Outcome Determination
- If retraction is warranted, ERPJ will issue a retraction notice linked to the original article.
- If the case is inconclusive or under investigation, an Expression of Editorial Concern may be published until the issue is resolved.
Publication of Retraction Notice
- A retraction notice is published, clearly stating the reason for retraction and linking to the retracted article.
- The retracted article remains accessible online but is marked prominently as retracted, with a link to the retraction notice.
Indexing and Database Updates
- Retractions are communicated to relevant indexing services (e.g., PubMed) to ensure the scientific record is appropriately updated.

14.5 Important Notes on Retractions

Expression of Editorial Concern: This serves to draw attention to potential issues while an investigation is ongoing. It does not imply final judgment and must be interpreted without prejudice.
Distinction from Withdrawal:
- Withdrawal: Refers to removing an unpublished manuscript from the peer-review or production process.
- Retraction: Applies to published articles, removing them from the scientific record and marking them as retracted with an accompanying statement.

14.6 Additional Considerations

ERPJ encourages authors to thoroughly review their manuscripts during submission, peer review, and proofreading stages to minimize post-publication corrections. Retractions are treated as a last resort and conducted transparently to uphold the integrity of the scientific record.

For more information, please contact us at office@emanresearch.org.

Return to Index

15. Use of AI tools declaration

We follow COPE's guidelines and policies regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools: COPE Policy on AI tools

Return to Index

16. Digital Archiving Policy – Journal of Angiotherapy

Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) is committed to ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of its published content. To achieve this, the journal implements a robust digital archiving policy that aligns with global best practices in scholarly publishing.

Archiving Partners and Repositories

To safeguard its published content, Journal of Angiotherapy actively participates in multiple digital preservation initiatives, including:

Australian National Library (ANL): We archive our journal with the National Library of Australia (NLA) via National e-deposit (NED), ensuring long-term accessibility for researchers worldwide. Electronic deposits through NED are usually discoverable in the National Library Catalogue and in Trove
Institutional and Subject-Based Repositories: The journal encourages authors to deposit their accepted manuscripts in institutional and subject-specific repositories.
Internet Archive: A supplementary digital copy of the journal is maintained in our own publishing house's digital repository Internet Archive for redundancy. This electronic archive is accessible through All Issues" of the Journal.

Open Access and Licensing

All archived content follows the journal’s open-access policy, ensuring free availability without restrictions. Articles are published under a Creative Commons license, allowing for broad dissemination and reuse while maintaining author rights.

Data and Metadata Standards

To facilitate seamless indexing and retrieval, Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) adheres to industry metadata standards such as:

Dublin Core for bibliographic information.
DOI (Digital Object Identifier) registration for all articles.
XML-based metadata formats for integration with indexing databases.

Policy Review

This digital archiving policy is periodically reviewed and updated to reflect advancements in digital preservation technologies and best practices.

Return to Index

17. Repository Policy - Journal of Angiotherapy

The Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) is committed to the broad dissemination and preservation of scholarly research. Integrative Biomedical Research (former Journal of Angiotherapy) permits authors to archive various versions of their manuscripts in repositories of their choice, thereby enhancing accessibility and impact.

Preprint: The original version of the manuscript submitted by the author, prior to peer review.
Postprint: The version of the manuscript that has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, but before final copyediting and formatting.
Published Version: The final, formatted version of the manuscript as it appears in the journal.

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors are encouraged to deposit their manuscripts in institutional or subject-specific repositories, as well as on personal or departmental websites. The following guidelines apply to each version of the manuscript:

Preprint:
- Authors are not permitted to archive preprints on any platform, including preprint servers, personal websites, or institutional repositories. If there is any confusion, the editorial office should be consulted before submission.
Postprint:
- Authors may archive postprints in institutional repositories, subject-specific repositories, or personal websites immediately upon acceptance.
- Authors must acknowledge the forthcoming publication in JoA and include a link to the journal's website.
Published Version:
- Authors may archive the published version on personal or institutional websites immediately upon publication.
- Authors should include a citation to the original publication in JoA and link to the article on the journal's website.

Licensing and Rights

All articles published in JoA are under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Authors retain the copyright of their work. Please see details of permission and rights in the open access section.

Compliance with Funding Requirements

JoA supports authors in complying with open access mandates from funding bodies. Our self-archiving policy aligns with most funder requirements, enabling authors to deposit their work in repositories as stipulated by their funding agreements.

Policy Updates

This policy will be reviewed periodically to ensure alignment with best practices in scholarly publishing and digital archiving. Authors are encouraged to consult the journal's website for the most current policy information.

Return to Index