About the Journal
ISSN 1311-3623 (Print), ISSN 2815-3456 (Online)
is the official journal of the
Bulgarian headache and pain society
Study Design and Ethics
Research should be conducted to high standards of quality control and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitute scientific misconduct.
Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) is required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues.
Authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work, some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the manuscript, but authorship roles can vary. Who will be an author, and in what sequence, should be determined by the participants early in the research process, to avoid disputes and misunderstandings which can delay or prevent publication of a paper. All authors must take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the manuscript, and one author must be the guarantor and take responsibility for the work as a whole.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of
their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include
employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest
should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher
and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors of Cephalgia to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Regular reviewers selected for the journal are required to meet the minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of manuscripts.
Decisions about a manuscript are based only on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope and content. If a published paper is subsequently found to have errors or major flaws, the Editor takes responsibility for promptly correcting the written record in the journal. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of editors should be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment.
Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations
Cephalgia seeks original work that has not been previously published. Republication of a paper in another language, or simultaneously in multiple journals with different audiences, may be acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission of the manuscript. At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers they have authored, even if in a different language, similar papers in press, and any closely related papers previously published or currently under review at another journal.
Advertisers and donors have no control over editorial material under any circumstances. Cephalgia requires all advertisements to clearly identify the advertiser and the product or service being offered. Commercial advertisements are not placed adjacent to any editorial matter that discusses the product being advertised, nor adjacent to any article reporting research on the advertised product, nor should they refer to an article in the same issue in which they appear. Ads have a different appearance from editorial material so there is no confusion between the two. Ads are to be placed only on the rear, or inside cover pages. Products or services being advertised are germane to (a) the practice of medicine, (b) medical education, or (c) health care delivery. The journal has the right to refuse any advertisement for any reason. Advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Responses to possible misconduct
All allegations of misconduct will be referred to the Editor-In-Chief, who will review the circumstances in consultation with the deputy editors. Initial fact-finding will usually include a request to all the involved parties to state their case, and explain the circumstances, in writing. In questions of research misconduct centering on methods or technical issues, the Editor-In-Chief may confidentially consult experts who are blinded to the identity of the individuals, or if the allegation is against an editor, an outside editor expert. The Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors will arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe there is a possibility of misconduct. Their goal is not to determine if actual misconduct occurred, or the precise details of that misconduct.
When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation described above will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated.