Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for the Journal of Research & Health (JRH).
It is necessary to agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. Our ethic statements are based on the Best Practice Guidelines of COPE for Journal Editors.
The editor of JRH is responsible for deciding whether the submitted articles to the journal should be published or not. The policies of the journal’s editorial board may guide the editor or such legal requirements constrain him regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair: An editor at any time evaluates the intellectual content of the manuscripts regardless of authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and the conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the written consent of the author.
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 revising the paper.
Promptness: Any selected referee who is not qualified to review the manuscript or feels that the prompt review is impossible for him should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Any received manuscript for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
The Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. The personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
The Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that in terms of an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the editor from any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they know.
Disclosure and the Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards: The Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the performed work as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be presented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraud or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases). If practicable, they should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely their original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, they have appropriately cited or quoted them.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: Generally, an author should not publish manuscripts which describe essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the others’ work must always be given. Authors should cite the publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to submit it for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that has any unusual inherent hazards in their use, the author must clearly identify them in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is his obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.