Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Publication Ethical Principles 

The ethical policy of JMM is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and complies with international committee of JMM Editorial board codes of conduct. Readers, authors, reviewers and editors should follow these ethical policies once working with  JMM. The ethical policy of JMM is liable to determine which of the typical research papers or articles submitted to the journal should be published in the concerned issue. For information on this matter in publishing and ethical guidelines please visit

In addition, information regarding the signature of consent document in case reports should be included in the manuscript. To use content such as photographs, scales, and surveys that do not belong to the authors of the manuscript, permission should be obtained from the owners of these contents and should be specified in the manuscript.

In case of use of intellectual and artistic works, it is obligatory to comply with the copyright regulations. JMM, which is an official registered member of the “International Publication Ethics Committee”, can only publish original works that are the product of a new solution approach or give a new perspective to existing information. A study sent to the journal office should not been published in another journal in any language and should not be evaluated. All manuscript should be prepared in accordance with the general ethical rules specified by International Publication Ethics Committee. Based on the propositions made by International Publication Ethics Committee and general publication requirements, authors, reviewers and editors must adhere to the given international standards.

For Authors:
1. The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and should comply with all relevant legislation.
2. Researchers should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
3. Researchers should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
4. Researchers should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarised, and has not been published elsewhere.
5. Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
6. The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individual contributions to the work and its reporting.
7. Funding sources and relevant conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

For Editors:
1. Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish.
2. Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent from commercial consideration and ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
3. Editors should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.
4. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
5. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
6. Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
7. Peer reviewers and authors should be told what is expected of them.
8. Editors should have appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest.

For Reviewers:
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to participate in the review process.

2. Confidentiality.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
Some editors encourage discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, but reviewers should first discuss this with the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed and that participants receive suitable credit.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

3. Alertness to Ethical Issues.
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

4. Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewers work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewers citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

For Publisher:
1. Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:
Editorial independence; Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research; Authorship; Transparency and integrity; Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor; Appeals and complaints
2. Communicate journal policies
3. Review journal policies periodically
4. Maintain the integrity of the academic record
5. Assist the parties responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
6. Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
7. Publish content on a timely basis



Opes Access Policy

JMM is an open access journal of related scientific research and technology development. It publishes reviews and regular research papers. 

A signed copyright transfer form must be submitted for the manuscript. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions. Authors are responsible for the Ethical Standards. Authors can submit their manuscripts by the JMM submission tool developed by OJS.

JMM is an opes access journal which publishes under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Peer Review Process:

Review policy for journal:

All articles submitted to JMM undergo a double-blind peer review process.

All manuscripts submitted as papers for publication in JMM will be sent to the two or three reviewers in the field. If a submission presents a severe case of plagiarism and includes a strong match and similarity, the editor has made the decision to reject the submission. The Journal decision-making process includes the following steps:  


Registration and submission

Registration in the Journal’s website by the corresponding author and providing the full affiliation of all authors.

Editor-in-Chief assessment and processing

The Editor-in-Chief inspects the manuscript in regards to the journal scope and originality. Taking into consideration that this is the first quality assessment checkpoint, the article might be rejected, or adjustments might be suggested by the editor at this step.

Check for plagiarism

At this step, the manuscript is inspected for plagiarism, and depending on the similarity check software report by iThenticate, the manuscript is either progressed into the review phase or rejected due to similarities. The acceptable similarity percentage is less than 20%.

Reviewers suggestion and invitation

The editor in chief in this stage can directly send invitations to experts in the field. The editor in chief might also consult more specialized associated editors to nominate reviewers. The invitation procedure continues until two reviewers accepts the invitation.

First decision after review

Depending on reviewers’ evaluation report for the article (additional reviewer might be invited in case of conflict between reviewers’ reports), one of four decisions are to be made by the journal board

  • Acceptance
  • Minor revision required
  • Major revision required
  • Rejection

This decision is sent to the corresponding author along with reviewers’ reports to help revision procedure or to explain the rejection decision.


Revision and re-submission

After a proper revision, the author resubmits the manuscript along with responses. The author has the right to reject one or more of the revisions.

Final decision

After revisions, the final decision is to be made by the editorial board. If the revision was satisfactory, the manuscript is accepted and sent for the publisher.

Plagiarism Prevention

All manuscripts submitted to journal are checked for similarity by iThenticate plagiarism checker to be assured about its originality and then rigorously peer-reviewed by the international reviewers. JMM allows an overall similarity of 20% for a manuscript to be considered for publication. The acceptable limit for similarity of text from a single source is 5%. In case the similarity index is higher than these permissible limits, the manuscript is returned to the author for paraphrasing the text and citing the original source of the copied material.


Open Access Policy

The JMM Publisher and Editors are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed. All articles published in JMM are fully open access. Articles are published in the JMM journal is under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

Publication Charge Policy

All papers published in JMM journal are open access and freely available online. While the publication is open access, it is free of charge. There is no article processing charges (APCs). 


Website Archiving: All of our electronic content (website, manuscripts, etc.) is stored on different sources. Content on one server is online and accessible to the readers and authors. The copy of the same content is kept as a backup on one other sources. 

Self-Archiving: Authors may archive the final published version of their paperss in personal.