All the authors have made direct academic and scientific contributions to the submitted manuscript. The authors should have all of the following specifications: Should plan or execute the study in the manuscript, should write or revise the manuscript, and accept the final draft

This Journal is committed to the standards of research and publication ethics, and does not allow for any form of plagiarism. The journal uses a plagiarism screening service to verify the originality of the submitted content before publication. If plagiarism is detected in articles submitted to a journal for publication, the responsibility is assigned to the authors. In case of any suspicion or claim regarding scientific shortcomings or ethical infringement, the journal reserves the right to submit the manuscript to supporting institutions or other authorities for investigation. The Journal accepts the responsibility of initiating action but does not undertake any responsibility for an actual investigation or any power of decision.
This Journal uses "iThenticate" to screen all submissions for plagiarism prior to publication. This journal does not accept articles that indicate a similarity rate of more than 25%, according to international reports. The authors must avoid all forms of plagiarism and ethical misconduct, as described below.
We disapprove of unethical practices and efforts to influence the review process with practices such as gifting authorship, inappropriate acknowledgments, and references, in line with the COPE flowcharts.
The authors are obliged to acknowledge if they have published study results in whole or in part in the form of abstracts.

Correction, Retraction, Clarification Policy, and Editorial Responses
This journal recognizes its obligation to correct errors in the work that it has published and to consider readers’ criticisms of that work.
Corrections and Retraction
Errors of this type will be corrected online as soon as possible, in coordination with the publisher, and printed on an erratum sheet that will appear in the next issue and be included in the digital version of the article. The corrected article will include a footnote stating the date of correction, and the volume and issue in which the erratum will appear. In a situation where the corrections are significant in scope or quantity, they would not be corrected online, but the digital version would include a footnote signaling the publication of the erratum.
Erratum or publisher correction: Correction of a significant error made by the journal that affects the scholarly record, scientific integrity of the article, or reputation of the authors or journal.
Corrigendum or author correction: Correction of a significant error made by the author that affects the scholarly record, the scientific integrity of the article, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.
Editorial Responses
Responses of this type will be peer-reviewed and, where possible, sent to referees who have reviewed the original submission. All parties remained anonymous to the extent possible. Responses are subject to oversight by the editors of the journal and will be published after full consultation with all the interested parties.
Editorial expression of concern: Notifies the addition of information to an article, for example, in response to a reader’s request for clarification or correction of a significant omission. Such addenda are published when editors decide that they are crucial to the reader’s understanding of a significant part of a published contribution.
Retraction: Notifies the readership of unsound results or misconduct following an investigation of the issue by the editor and publisher. The original article will remain available, but will be marked as retracted through a published note from the editor.
Article removal: In rare instances, a journal may be obliged to remove an article as a consequence of legal action. Such removal will be marked on the issue table of contents, and a notice indicating removal will replace the article’s content.
See the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for further information on professional standards for publishing.

Clarification and Appeals
If something in the editor’s decision letter or review material is unclear or inconsistent, the authors may email questions to the editorial office to request clarification from the editor before revising the manuscript.
Editors cannot discuss submissions or the review process directly with the authors (by phone, video, in-person, etc.).
The corresponding author should email all correspondence regarding your submission to the editorial office (not to the editor).
The staff will upload your written clarification request to the peer review system, where it will only be visible to the editor and associate editor (reviewers will not see the authors’ clarification requests). The editor will decide whether to consult the associate editor and the editor will provide a response that will be archived in the system (reviewers will not see the editor’s response).
The requirement of written requests for clarification is not intended to act as a barrier. This process ensures good record-keeping, provides the editor with sufficient time to reflect on their answers, and allows the editor to consult before responding.
This Journal does not provide or approve formal revision plans. The editor considers your request and attempts to provide the best possible feedback. However, clarification from the editor does not guarantee a positive outcome, and should not be mistaken as a signal of the approval of a specific revision plan. If a revised manuscript is submitted, it will be evaluated by the entire review team.
Plagiarism: Republishes the whole or part of the content in another author's publication without attribution.
Fabrication: Publish data and findings/results that do not exist.
Duplication: Using data from another publication, this includes re-publishing an article in a different language.
Salamization: Creating multiple publications by abnormally 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 and efforts to influence the review process with practices such as gifting authorship, inappropriate acknowledgments, and references, in line with the COPE flowcharts.
The submitted manuscripts were subjected to automatic software evaluation for plagiarism and duplicate publication. The authors are obliged to acknowledge if they have published study results in whole or in part in the form of abstracts.

For experimental, clinical, and human drug studies, approval by the ethical committee and a statement on the adherence of the study protocol to 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 are based on animal rights (Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals), and they should obtain approval from the animal ethics committee. The Ethics Committee approval document should be submitted to the journal along with the manuscript.
The approval of the ethics committee, a statement on the adherence to the international guidelines mentioned above, and proof that the patient's informed consent was obtained should be indicated in the “Method” section. These items are required for case reports whenever data or media can reveal the identity of the patient. For persons under 18 years of age, please provide a consent form that includes both the parents' signatures and the person's legal guardian or supervisor. 

The Editorial Board of the Journal of Medicine and Palliative Care and the responsible publisher adhere to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), US National Library of Medicine (NLM), World Medical Association (WMA), and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The Journal conforms to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing.
According to the journal’s policy, approval of research protocols by an ethics committee following the international agreements "WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (last updated: October 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil),” "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th edition, 2011), " or "International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012)" is required for all research studies. If the submitted manuscript does not have ethics committee approval, it will not be processed for further evaluation.
For articles concerning experimental research on humans, a statement that showed the informed consent of patients and volunteers was obtained following a detailed explanation of the procedures that they may undergo. The Journal may request a copy of the ethics committee approval from the authors.

The JOMPAC authors were required to confirm the following.
• The submitted articles must be original studies by authors (s).
• Only unpublished articles should be submitted.
• Submitting an article to more than one journal at the same time is unethical.
• Any conflict of interest should be clearly stated.
• The data sources used in this study are explained.
• Any errors detected after the article is submitted should be immediately reported to the JOMPAC editors.

The JOMPAC reviewers were required to confirm the following:
• All articles should be reviewed legally based on their intellectual content, regardless of the gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political value of the author(s).
• Reviews should be objective and constructive, avoiding hostile or provocative comments and making libelous or offensive comments.
• To conduct a comprehensive review, authors should have the required field expertise and review articles that can be evaluated on time.
• Any conflict of interest detected during the review process must be reported to the JOMPAC editors.
• All information about the article should be kept confidential.
• Information obtained during the review process should not be used for the benefit of the reviewers themselves or any other person, the organization, or to put others in a disadvantageous position or discredit them.
• Information that may be the reason for the rejection of an article’s publication should be reported to JOMPAC editors.

The JOMPAC editors were required to confirm the following:
• All articles should be evaluated reasonably based on their intellectual content, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or political values of the author(s).
• All information about the article should be kept confidential.
• Any observed conflicts of interest with the articles should be disclosed.
• The editorial board takes on the responsibility to make publication decisions for submitted articles based on peer reviews, the policies of the journal's editorial board, and legal restrictions against plagiarism, defamation, and copyright.
Ethic Responsibility
All the authors have made direct academic and scientific contributions to the submitted manuscript. The authors should have all the following specifications: plan or execute the study in the manuscript, write or revise the manuscript, and accept the final draft.
The journal searches for conformity with the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki (http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm) for all clinical studies. The scientific and ethical liabilities of the manuscript belong to the authors, and the copyright of the manuscript belongs to the journal. The authors are responsible for the content of the manuscript and accuracy of the references. All manuscripts submitted for publication must be accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Form [copyright transfer]. Once this form, signed by all authors, has been submitted, it is understood that neither the manuscript nor the data it contains have been submitted elsewhere or have been previously published, and the authors declare the statement of scientific contributions and responsibilities of all authors.
If the article includes any direct or indirect commercial links or if any institution provides material support to the study, the authors must state in the cover letter that they have no relationship with the commercial product, drug, pharmaceutical company, etc. concerned, or specify the type of relationship (consultant, other agreements), if any. The authors must provide a statement regarding the absence of conflicts of interest among the authors and authorship contributions. In case of any suspicion or claim regarding scientific shortcomings or ethical infringement, the journal reserves the right to submit the manuscript to supporting institutions or other authorities for investigation. The Journal accepts the responsibility of initiating action but does not undertake any responsibility for an actual investigation or any power of decision.
The preparation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses must comply with the following study design guidelines: PRISMA statement of preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097.) (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

All sources of financial support have been disclosed. All authors should disclose whether a meaningful conflict of interest exists in the process of their study. Any financial grants or other support received from individuals or institutions for the submitted study should be disclosed to the Editorial Board of the Journal. The ICMJE Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form should be filled in and submitted by all the contributing authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest. The Editorial Board of the journal determines cases of potential conflicts of interest between the editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of the COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
Conditions that provide financial or personal benefits lead to conflicts of interest. The reliability of scientific processes and published articles is directly related to the objective consideration of conflicts of interest during planning, implementation, writing, evaluation, editing, and publication of scientific studies.
Financial relations are the most easily identified conflicts of interest, and inevitably undermine the credibility of journals, authors, and science. These conflicts can be caused by individual relationships, 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 restricts their ability to access all data of the study or analyze, interpret, prepare, and publish their articles. Editors should refrain from bringing together those who may have any relationships 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 to any of the issues they are going to decide. The authors should inform the editorial board concerning potential conflicts of interest to ensure that their articles are evaluated within the framework of ethical principles through an independent assessment process.
If one of the editors was the author of any manuscript, the editor was excluded from the manuscript evaluation process. The article evaluation process was double-blinded to prevent conflicts of interest. 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 was informed about the authors of the manuscript or the authors’ institutions.
Our publication team works devotedly to ensure that the evaluation process is conducted impartially, considering all these situations.

The declaration of conflict of interest between authors, institutions, and acknowledgment of any financial or material support or aid is mandatory for authors submitting a manuscript, and the statement should appear at the end of the manuscript. Reviewers are required to report whether any potential conflicts of interest exist between the reviewers and the authors or institutions.

Appeal and complaint cases were handled within the scope of COPE guidelines by the journal’s Editorial Board. The appeals should be based on the scientific content of the manuscript. The final decision regarding the appeal and complaint was made by the editor-in-chief. An Ombudsperson or the Ethical Editor is assigned to resolve cases that cannot be resolved internally. Authors should get in contact with the Editor in Chief regarding their appeals and complaints via e-mail at jompac@medihealthacademy.com