Our publishing program includes Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology and Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Optometry. Although each journal maintains its own scientific scope, editorial structure, and author guidelines, both operate within a shared framework of responsible scholarly publishing.
We regard publication as more than the dissemination of manuscripts. It is a process of editorial stewardship that requires scientific scrutiny, ethical oversight, transparency, independence, careful presentation, and continuing responsibility for the published scholarly record. Our publishing practices are therefore designed to support the reliability, clarity, and integrity of the research we publish.
Editorial Scope and Scholarly Responsibility
Each journal maintains a clearly defined scientific scope and editorial purpose. Published articles consistently adhere to these declared boundaries. Submissions are assessed at an early stage for their relevance to the journal, originality, scientific importance, technical suitability, and compliance with applicable ethical and editorial requirements before proceeding to external peer review.
Editorial responsibility remains with the individual journal throughout the assessment process. Scientific relevance and quality, rather than commercial considerations, determine whether a manuscript progresses toward publication.
Independent Peer Review
Peer review is a central component of quality assurance across our journals. Manuscripts that successfully complete initial editorial assessment undergo double-blind external peer review, with the identities of authors and reviewers mutually concealed. Manuscripts proceeding to full review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers selected for relevant scientific expertise.
Reviewers are asked to consider matters including originality, scientific significance, study design, methodology, statistical validity, reliability of the findings, ethical conduct, relevance, reporting quality, and clarity of scientific communication.
Reviewer recommendations contribute to editorial decision-making but do not replace editorial responsibility for the final publication decision.
Special safeguards apply when a submission involves an editor, editorial-board member, or journal staff member. Such manuscripts remain subject to the journal’s established peer-review requirements and are assigned for editorial handling to an appropriately independent member of the editorial structure without a relevant conflict of interest.
Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
We consider editorial independence fundamental to trustworthy scholarly publishing.
Authors are expected to disclose relevant financial and non-financial competing interests and sources of research funding. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are likewise expected to disclose conflicts that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, their responsibilities in the evaluation of a manuscript. Where a relevant conflict exists, editorial or review responsibilities are reassigned as appropriate.
Publication charges, fee-assistance decisions, or other financial considerations are kept separate from scientific and editorial decision-making. Decisions concerning manuscripts are based on their scientific quality, originality, methodology, ethical acceptability, relevance, and overall suitability for the journal. Commercial sponsorships, advertising, or corporate support do not influence editorial decisions, nor do they compromise the objectivity, impartiality, or published content of our journals.
Research Integrity and Publication Ethics
Our journals maintain policies addressing responsible authorship, originality, plagiarism and text similarity, duplicate and redundant publication, competing interests, research misconduct, human and animal research, informed consent, confidentiality, and the appropriate use of previously published material.
Submissions are expected to comply with applicable ethical approvals and recognized principles governing research involving human participants, human data, or animals. Where necessary, journals may request supporting ethical documentation or underlying research information.
Concerns arising before or after publication are investigated through established editorial procedures. When errors or integrity concerns affect the published record, the journals may issue formal notices, including errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, or retractions, in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.
Our editorial and ethical practices draw on established guidance in biomedical and scholarly publishing, including recommendations developed by organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), where applicable.
Scientific and Methodological Quality
Scientific assessment extends beyond originality alone. Manuscripts are expected to present a clearly defined rationale and objective, use a study design appropriate to the research question, describe methods with sufficient detail, report analyses transparently, and distinguish appropriately between findings and interpretation.
Editors and reviewers consider whether the methodology and analysis support the stated objectives and whether the conclusions are justified by the evidence presented.
Authors are expected to discuss their findings critically in relation to relevant scientific literature and to acknowledge important strengths, limitations, uncertainties, and potential sources of bias. Conclusions should remain proportionate to the design, findings, and limitations of the study and should not extend beyond the evidence presented.
Transparent and Reproducible Research Reporting
Complete and transparent reporting is an important part of scientific quality.
Authors are expected to provide sufficient methodological information for readers to understand and critically evaluate how the research was conducted and, where applicable, to facilitate reproducibility. This may include clear reporting of study design, participant or sample selection, interventions or exposures, outcome measures, statistical methods, ethical approval, and other information relevant to the validity and interpretation of the findings.
Our journals encourage the use of established reporting standards appropriate to the study design, including internationally recognized frameworks for clinical trials, observational research, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, diagnostic studies, animal research, qualitative research, and other study types. Examples include CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, STARD, ARRIVE, and other appropriate reporting guidance.
Editors and reviewers may consider adherence to relevant reporting standards when assessing the completeness, methodological transparency, and interpretability of submitted work. Where necessary for editorial or integrity purposes, supporting information or underlying research data may also be requested.
Responsible Interpretation and Scholarly Citation
Published research should be interpreted within the context of the existing scientific literature.
Authors are expected to support substantive scientific statements with current and relevant citations, acknowledge pertinent previous work, and provide a balanced account of the evidence relevant to their research question. References should be presented consistently according to the bibliographic requirements of the respective journal.
We do not regard citation as a purely technical element of manuscript preparation. Appropriate engagement with previous scholarship helps establish the rationale for a study, place its findings in context, and distinguish new contributions from existing knowledge.
Clarity of Scientific Communication
Scientific quality depends on the ability of readers to understand what was done, what was found, and what can reasonably be concluded.
Manuscripts are therefore expected to communicate their rationale, methods, results, and interpretation clearly and logically. Clarity of scientific language and presentation forms part of editorial and peer-review assessment, with editorial preparation also intended to improve consistency and readability without altering the scientific meaning of the work.
Articles are required to feature complete, structured, and accurate abstracts that faithfully summarize the study’s rationale, methods, main results, and conclusions without omitting critical contextual findings.
Figures, Tables, and Presentation of Results
Figures and tables are treated as components of the scientific record rather than as decorative elements.
They are expected to be high-resolution, clearly legible, well-annotated, and presented without visual blurring or distortion. Appropriate titles, legends, labels, explanations of abbreviations, and consistency with the accompanying text are required.
Authors are also responsible for obtaining appropriate permission when previously published visual or tabular material is reproduced or adapted.
Editorial and Production Quality Assurance
Different categories of articles follow defined structures appropriate to their purpose. Original research, reviews, case reports, hypotheses, editorials, letters, and other publication types are prepared according to the requirements established by the respective journal.
Following scientific acceptance, manuscripts undergo careful editorial, copyediting, and production checks aimed at identifying and correcting technical, typographical, and structural errors, including inconsistencies in section numbering and figure or table labeling, while ensuring accurate presentation, consistency, and readability. Authors are provided with publication proofs for final review before publication.
Editorial attention continues through publication; acceptance of a manuscript is not regarded as the end of the quality-assurance process.
Transparent Editorial Governance
The editorial leadership of each journal is publicly identifiable. The names and institutional affiliations of editors and editorial-board members are made available through the respective journal websites.
Editorial expertise is expected to reflect the scientific scope of each journal, and board composition is reviewed with attention to relevant academic and professional expertise. We also value broad scholarly participation across diverse institutions, geographic regions, and scientific communities within both our editorial boards and our contributing authorship, while maintaining editorial appointments according to the needs and scope of each publication.
Publication Continuity and Responsible Growth
Scholarly publishing requires continuity as well as quality.
Our publishing program is managed with the aim of maintaining each journal’s declared publication schedule, regular publication continuity, and sustainable editorial capacity without prioritizing quantity over scientific quality.
Each journal maintains its own declared publication model and archive, providing a continuing record of its published scholarship.
Digital Archiving and Preservation
Our responsibility to published research extends beyond the date of publication.
Published content is preserved through recognized digital archiving services, including CLOCKSS, supporting long-term accessibility, continuity, and preservation of the scholarly record.
We regard preservation as an integral component of responsible publishing and maintain journal-level arrangements appropriate to the continuing accessibility of published content.
Continuing Quality Assurance
Publishing standards evolve alongside research methods, ethical expectations, reporting practices, and developments in scholarly communication. We therefore regard editorial policies, author guidance, peer-review practices, and editorial governance as processes that require continuing review rather than static requirements.
Our objective is to maintain publishing practices that support scientific rigor, editorial independence, ethical conduct, transparency, clear reporting, and the long-term reliability of the scholarly record.
Journal-specific policies
For detailed journal-level editorial and publishing policies, please refer to:
Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Ophthalmology — Journal Policies
Medical Hypothesis, Discovery & Innovation in Optometry — Journal Policies
IVORC, Collaboration on Innovations 