Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

  1. Editor’s responsibilities
  • The Chief Editor/Editor of the “Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences” holds the authority to decide about the acceptance of articles based on reviewer comments, scope of the article and novelty and innovation to the literature.
  • Other members of the editorial board and advisory panel will assist the Chief Editor/Editor to reach to a final decision about the acceptance and rejection of article.
  • Along with these it remains the prime responsibility of the Chief Editor/Editor to ensure the author ship issue, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

1.1      Fair play

“Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences” practice a fair policy to evaluate the article submitted for peer review.

  • It is never practiced that an article is assessed based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Principle of equity and equality was practiced for all and the final decision is always on the intellectual contents of the article.

1.2           Confidentiality

To keep the confidentiality of the authors and their research article, blinded articles are requested by the authors.

  • The Chief Editor/Editor, Reviewers 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.

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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a Chief Editor/Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

  1. Reviewers Responsibilities

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 

  • Objectivity
  • Novelty
  • Previously published work
  • Salami articles or Salam slicing of data
  • Assess for duplication of data
  • Study Design
  • Statistical appropriateness of results
  • Contribution to the literature
  • Provide evidence or citation if some results are conducted in a wrong way which may raise a conflict in the literature

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 

  • Personal Criticism
  • Inappropriate comments /language
  • Non-evidence base comments for the results or conclusion

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

  1. Authors responsibility
  • Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences” expect the following from their authors
  • All the authors must fulfill authorship criteria, “GHOST” & “GUEST” authorship is strongly discouraged.
  • Results and Methods should be self-explanatory with the justification and relevant citation.
  • Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  • Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, and should unfailingly cite the work on which they are based.
  • Supplementary and raw data should be provided along with the article
  • Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given

3.1       Originality and Plagiarism

  • It should be prime responsibility of the corresponding author to confirm all copyright laws and conventions.
  • Plagiarism in any form is strongly discouraged

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

  • 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 Chief Editor/Editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.
  • If the Chief Editor/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 Chief Editor/Editor of the correctness of the original paper.
  • Correction or errata should be submitted to correct the mistake.

Hiding a mistake will be considered as another mistake, which may influence negatively to the scientific literature

Editorial team

Journal of Clinical Practice and Health Sciences

 

Flag Counter