Submissions

Author Guidelines

Definition of authorship as per our journal

We define authorship as per COPE guidelines. The minimum requirements for authorship, common to all definitions, are

1. substantial contribution to the work and
2. accountability for the work that was done and its presentation in a publication

By submitting your manuscript to this journal, you affirm that both you and the other authors linked to the manuscript adhere to the criteria for authorship

Conflicts of Interest Statement

A conflict of interest arises in a manuscript when the author is associated with activities that might unduly influence their judgment, regardless of whether this influence occurs. Financial connections with industry, such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, grants, or expert testimony, either personally or through immediate family, are typically regarded as significant competing interests. Should such conflicts exist, authors are required to disclose them during manuscript submission

Statement on the Incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Scientific Writing

The utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, specifically Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, is allowed solely for the enhancement of language and not for deriving insights and/or commentary. This usage must be thoroughly documented in the methods section. It is imperative that AI is not credited or listed as an author.

Ethical Clearance

• All studies involving human and animal subjects must address ethical considerations.
• When reporting research on human subjects, authors must specify whether the procedures align with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and comply with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in 2013.
• Ethical clearance, obtained in writing from a formally constituted Institutional Ethics Committee, is mandatory for all research studies.
• The cover letter should explicitly state the name of the ethics committee clearing the study, along with the date and number in the cover letter.
• MLU reserves the right to request a copy of the relevant document as needed.
• Even if a study has been approved by a Research Ethics Committee, editors may express concerns about the ethical aspects of the work during the review process.
• When describing animal experiments, authors should specify adherence to institutional and national standards for the ethical care and use of laboratory animals. We endorse the NACLAR guidelines, emphasizing humane and responsible treatment of animals for scientific purposes and offering practical advice. This includes:

• Replacement: If a research question can be addressed without using animals,authors should opt for methodologies like cell studies or computer modeling, thus avoiding animal use. When possible, consider using morally "lower" species in place of "higher" ones.
Reduction: Employ a smaller number of animals when feasible to answer research questions.
• Refinement: Continuously refine research methods, techniques, concepts, and tools to minimize the necessity for animals in research and mitigate potential harms.
• Authors may be asked to provide more detailed information and justify the ethical and moral aspects of the research.
• Editors may request contact details of the research ethics committee for further inquiry.
• MLU editors may consult with editorial colleagues, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, WAME or ICMJE), or Ethical advisors to assess the ethical aspects of an article and retain the right to reject a manuscript on ethical grounds, irrespective of institutional ethics committee approval.
• In addition to manuscript rejection, the journal reserves the right to communicate ethical concerns to the head of the author's institution or the medical council to prevent unethical practices and safeguard patients.
• Consent of human Research Subjects: In case of identifiable photographs and/or medical data of research subjects particularly minors and deceased, informed consent should be obtained from the subject themselves, legal guardians or next of kin respectively. Please visit journal website for consent form. The identity of the patient in clinical photographs should be masked by suitable methods and any sensitive medical data should be anonymized

Ethical Guidelines for Reporting on Sensitive Cases Involving Minors and/or Marginalized Groups

1. Informed Consent and Consent of Guardians
   Ensure that proper consent is obtained from the legal guardians or representatives of minors and individuals from marginalized groups involved in the study. The consent process should be transparent and comprehensive, detailing how the information will be used for research.
2. Anonymity and Confidentiality
   Protect the identity and privacy of minors and marginalized individuals by anonymizing data. Remove any personal identifiers and use data aggregation methods whenever possible to prevent re-identification. Specifically:
• Cover Faces and Personal Images: When sharing images or visual data that include the individuals involved, ensure that faces and any identifiable features are covered or obscured. Use techniques such as blurring, cropping, or masking to prevent recognition.
• Avoid Personal Identifiers: Refrain from sharing any data that could directly identify individuals, such as names, addresses, or unique personal characteristics.

Respect for Individuals

Treat all individuals involved with dignity and respect throughout the research process. This includes maintaining confidentiality and privacy regarding their identity and personal details.
1. Neutral and Fact-Based Analysis
   Ensure that the narrative is neutral and fact-based. Avoid any language that could demonize or stigmatize any community or individual. Present the analysis objectively, focusing on facts and evidence rather than opinions or biases.
2. Reports on Crime Committed upon Minors and/or Marginalized Groups
   When reporting on cases that involve crimes committed upon minors and/or marginalized groups,take extra care to respect their dignity and privacy. Avoid sensationalism and ensure that the reporting does not cause further harm or distress to the victims or their communities.
3. Legal and Institutional Compliance
   Adhere to all relevant laws and regulations governing the reporting of sensitive cases, especially those involving minors and marginalized groups. This includes compliance with institutional review board (IRB) guidelines, local, national, and international laws, and any other applicable regulations.
4. Purpose and Scientific Value
   Ensure that the research has a clear and valuable scientific purpose. The potential benefits of the research should justify the reporting on sensitive cases. Research should aim to advance knowledge or improve practices in a meaningful way.
5. Transparency and Honesty
   Be transparent in the research methodology and the origins of the data used. Accurately report how the information was obtained, the consent process followed, and any ethical approvals secured.
6. Minimizing HarmAim to minimize any form of distress or harm to the individuals and communities involved. This includes being sensitive to cultural and social contexts and ensuring that the reporting does not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities or discrimination.

The editorial board retains the authority to review and question researchers on any of these ethical aspects. Manuscripts found to be unethical may be subject to rejection

Funding Sources

Authors must disclose all financial and material support received for the research, providing details such as grant number and funding agency.

Type of article and manuscript format

Submitted manuscript can be original research, case reports or review articles. For guidelines on the type of articles please see here

Recommended format for manuscript can be accessed here

Enhancing Research Impact: Key Considerations for MLU Submissions

Given the extensive reach of Medico-Legal Update (MLU), it is recommended that authors thoroughly address the following questions to ensure their research resonates with a diverse audience, including lawyers, doctors, medico-legal experts, policymakers, and professionals in related fields. Having clear takeaways from the research will improve its relevance and citeability. Authors are requested to address and summarize each of these in the Discussion/Conclusion section.

Key Considerations

1. Research Question/Hypothesis
• Question:What is the central research question or hypothesis of your study, and how does your research address it?
• Explanation:Clearly state the main question or hypothesis your research aims to answer. Discuss the significance and implications of this question in the context of medico-legal studies.
2. Existing Work and Methodology
• Existing Work:What existing work has been done on this topic, and how has it informed your hypothesis and research methodology?
• Explanation:Summarize the existing literature and previous studies related to your topic. Describe how these works have influenced your research design and methodology.
3. Novel Contributions
• Novelty:What are the new aspects of your research? How does your study add to the current discourse on this topic?
• Explanation:Highlight the unique contributions of your study. Discuss what sets your research apart from existing work and its innovative aspects.
4. Relevance to Medico-Legal Field
• Relevance:How is your research relevant to the medico-legal field, specifically medico-legal experts and policymakers?
• Explanation:Explain the practical applications and implications of your findings for professionals in the medico-legal field. Discuss how your research can inform practice, policy, and further studies in this area.
5. Future Research Directions
• Future Research:What could be potential future research topics and areas stemming from your study?
• Explanation:Suggest possible areas for further investigation that build on your findings.Outline potential research questions that arise from your study and the broader impacts they could have.

Publication process and criteria for acceptance

A manuscript will be reviewed for possible publication with the understanding that it is being submitted exclusively to MLU and has not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere. The journal requires that authors authorize one among them (the corresponding author) to communicate with the journal regarding all matters related to the manuscript. All received manuscripts are duly acknowledged.

Upon submission, editors initially review all manuscripts for suitability for formal review.Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they lack originality, have serious scientific or technical flaws, fail to convey a significant message, are out of scope, or do not conform to the journal's guidelines. The initial screening decision will typically be communicated within one week of submission completion.

We are dedicated to upholding elevated editorial standards and maintaining the integrity of our journal. Our commitment to quality is reflected in our rigorous peer review process, which typically takes 4-5 weeks. Here is an overview of the evaluation process your manuscript will undergo post-submission:

• Submitting the manuscript:We encourage you to submit the manuscript through the OJS platform as it maintains transparency and visibility of the publication process. You can submit here- https://ijop.net/index.php/mlu. In case you are unable to submit on OJS, you can email us your manuscripts at [email protected]
• Relevance to the Aim and Scope:If your article aligns with the journal's scope, it will proceed; otherwise, the editor may suggest incorporating a relevant lens or may reject your article
• Rejection Reasons:
1. Out-of-scope submissions.
2. Lack of novelty in research subject
3. Insufficient inclusion of necessary elements, such as research methods
4. Evidence of research misconduct
5. >10% Plagiarism (we use paid Similarity Check/iThenticate services and will check each manuscript
6. Inability to provide necessary ethical clearances and consent from research subjects
• Peer Review Process:Upon the editor's approval, a double-blind peer review will be initiated, involving subject matter experts. Following the review, your manuscript will be returned with comments.
• Author Addresses Comments:Implement necessary revisions based on peer review comments and resubmit the revised manuscript to the editor.
• Intimation of Acceptance:If the editor is satisfied, you will be informed of your manuscript's acceptance, along with details about the publication timeline. Manuscript handling charges will be required, and an acceptance letter will be issued.
• Pre-Release:Before publication, you will receive a pre-release version of your article. Please review it thoroughly and communicate any essential changes to us

Double Blind Peer Review Guidelines

We require an anonymized manuscript for our double-blind peer review process, meaning that author information will be concealed from peer reviewers. When submitting your manuscript, please eliminate any identifying details, such as author's names or affiliations. Additionally, ensure that the manuscript is appropriately prepared for double-blind review by following these guidelines:

• Utilize the third person to reference previously published work by the authors, for instance, write 'Sharma and Iyer (2015) have demonstrated' rather than 'we/the authors have previously demonstrated (Sharma & Iyer, 2015)'.
• Ensure figures and tables do not include any references to author affiliations.
• Omit acknowledgments and any mentions of funding sources.
• Provide these details, including declarations of potential conflicts of interest, on the title page, which is not shared with reviewers. The format for the same is available on the journal website.
• Exercise caution in choosing file names, and anonymize the file;s 'Properties'. If using Office 2007 or later, consider employing the Document Inspector Tool before submission.
• Be vigilant to avoid inadvertently including identifying information within the manuscript as it will be shared with the reviewers

Change in authorship or contributorship

Once an article has been submitted into our system and the review process is underway,modifications to authorship cannot be accommodated. However, if there arises a necessity to alter authors or adjust the order of contributorship pre-publication, we require explicit consent from all the authors. This consent should be provided either through official email addresses or by submitting a no-objection certificate on their institution's letterhead.

If there is a change in authorship or contributorship post-publication, we will follow the same process of needing explicit consent from all authors. We can make the authorship and contributorship changes on platforms controlled by us primarily journal website and OJS but cannot guarantee that the changes will be reflected in third party platforms and databases that index the journal.

Article withdrawal process

You can withdraw your article at any time pre-publication. However, we may not be able to issue you a full refund especially if your article has been through the review process since we have invested resources in the review process. We will evaluate refunds on a case-by-case basis and may issue refunds to authors under financial duress. We recommend you inform us about your intention to withdraw as soon as possible.

Publication Charges Policy

We operate Open Access publications, implying that we do not charge for online subscriptions to our journal. Our primary goal is to establish high-quality multidisciplinary research platforms. The deliberate choice of adopting an open-access model is driven by the intention to eliminate cost barriers for researchers, especially those based in developing countries, enabling unrestricted access to top-tier research.

To sustain the quality of our journal, nominal publication fees are charged to authors. These fees contribute to covering essential costs associated with maintaining a high-standard publication. Key expense areas include:

1. Host and server maintenance for our online platforms, such as website and OJS.
2. Crossref fees for generating Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs).
3. Paid plagiarism checks through Similarity Check/iThenticate.
4. Editorial office and staff.

While we typically do not offer fee waivers or discounts due to these operational costs, we recognize that researchers, particularly in developing countries, may face financial constraints. In light of this, we are open to considering waivers and discounts on a case-by-case basis.

If you are in a situation where financial considerations may pose challenges, we encourage you to reach out to us, explaining your circumstances. We have previously granted fee waivers to researchers facing conditions such as:

• Being based in countries experiencing war and/or economic crises.
• Conducting exceptional research recognized with multiple awards.
• Facing exceptional financial strain, particularly those from families classified under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.