Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
1.1 Fair play
“Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences” practice a fair policy to evaluate the article submitted for peer review.
To keep the confidentiality of the authors and their research article, blinded articles are requested by the authors.
1.3 Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a Chief Editor/Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Reviewers serving “Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences” are the main force to assess the novelty of the articles. A double blind review is conducted to avoid the chance of any bias or conflict. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only to the Chief Editor/Editor. Upon receipt of reviewer comments, The Chief Editor/Editor communicates with authors, as required, and helps them in improving quality of their research paper.
2.1 Timeliness of the review process
The journal Chief Editor/Editor are committed to provide timely review to the authors and if 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 Chief Editor/Editor and excuse him/her from the review process.
2.2 Privacy statement for peer review
All the manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents. Only the Editor of chief/ Assigned editor have access to such material and they follow the ethic to keep the identity of the articles confidential, even after the rejection of the article.
2.3 What reviewers must assess in the peer review
In addition a reviewer must disclose conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4 What reviewers must avoid in peer review
2.5 Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Chief Editor/Editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge
3.1 Originality and Plagiarism
Any author found committing plagiarism should be blacklisted and brought to justice.
3.2 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.
3.3 Fundamental errors in published works
Hiding a mistake will be considered as another mistake, which may influence negatively to the scientific literature
“Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences”