Publication Ethics

The Interprofessional of Health Sciences (IJHS) places a strong emphasis on adhering to ethical standards when publishing. It's essential that everyone involved - from journal editors and authors to peer reviewers - understands and follows these standards. Our ethical guidelines are in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethics of Journal Editors

The paragraph you provided is quite clear and coherent in its structure and content. However, I'll provide a slightly refined version to ensure utmost clarity:

Conflicts of Interest: When editors have conflicts of interest or a personal involvement with the publication of research work, they should step away from the review process.

Confidentiality: The Interprofessional of Health Sciences (IJHS) follows a double-blind peer-review process, ensuring that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. Editors have a responsibility to uphold this confidentiality. They should not disclose the content of the manuscript or the identity of the author during the review. All comments, information, or insights gained during peer review must be kept confidential. Furthermore, unpublished content from the manuscript shouldn't be quoted or referenced by editors without the clear written permission of the author.

Objectivity: Editors approach publication decisions with objectivity. This involves weighing both the manuscript and feedback from peer reviews. For a manuscript to be published, its contribution to the existing field of research, clarity of argumentation, and the strength of evidence are all critical considerations.

Publication Decision: Articles previously published (aside from abstracts) or currently under consideration elsewhere will not be accepted by the journal. While a manuscript is under review at IJHS, it should not be submitted to any other journal. The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers based on the manuscript's content and scope, the potential reviewers' expertise, and the absence of conflicts of interest. The ultimate decision regarding publication lies with the editors, who are guided by the journal's policies and must adhere to legal standards related to libel, copyright, and plagiarism. Editors might consult their peers or other reviewers to inform these decisions.

Author Ethics Guidelines

Precision: When authors present original research, they must provide an accurate description of the study and an objective discussion of its significance. The data should be truthfully presented in the article, ensuring that the results are clear, authentic, and devoid of any misleading or manipulated information. Conclusions drawn should be based on the evidence presented in the paper, rather than on personal biases.

Collaboration: Every author should agree to the submission and the order of their names on the title page. The primary author is expected to represent all co-authors during the editorial and publishing processes.

Transparency and Potential Biases: Authors should openly declare any affiliations or relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest in their submissions. The lead author must ensure they have the ultimate authority in the decision to submit for publication and can access all the data from the study.

Innovation and Authenticity: Manuscripts submitted to IJHS should be original and not be under consideration elsewhere. When presenting new insights, authors must provide an honest representation of their research. They should also appropriately credit any content or words from other sources. Properly citing previous works and ideas is essential. Engaging in practices like plagiarism, fabricating data, or manipulating citations will result in the rejection of the manuscript. Please be aware that IJHS might use software to screen for plagiarism in submissions.

Research Ethics Involving Living Beings: For studies involving animals, humans, or biodiversity, adherence to relevant laws and institutional guidelines is mandatory. Research involving human participants must have approval from an ethics committee, and this approval, along with its code, should be stated in the manuscript. All sources of funding should be acknowledged, and any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

Ethics of Reviewers

Maintaining Privacy: Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality inherent in the review process. They should refrain from discussing the manuscript they are reviewing with colleagues until its publication. Information from a manuscript under review should not be cited or referenced without the direct permission of the author, which must be obtained through the editor. Knowledge gained during the review process is confidential and must not be used for personal benefit.

Navigating Personal Biases: If reviewers identify a personal connection to the research or researchers—whether they have participated in the study, are acquainted with the authors, or believe they cannot maintain impartiality—they should inform the editors and decline the review assignment. Conflicts of interest may emerge from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, related companies, or institutions.

Objective Assessment: Manuscripts must be assessed objectively, leveraging the reviewer’s expertise in the field. The review should focus on the paper's significance in its domain, the coherence of its arguments, and the robustness of its evidence. Decisions should not stem from baseless personal opinions.

Citing Relevant Works: Reviewers ought to point out significant related works that the authors might have overlooked. If a reviewer detects significant similarities between the manuscript in question and another published work they know of, they should alert the editor.

Standing Against Plagiarism: IJHS adheres strictly to anti-plagiarism policies and condemns data manipulation. All articles are meticulously screened using the "Turnitin" software. When a submission exhibits more than 30% similarity to other works, it raises concerns. In such instances, the Editor-in-Chief is notified. Egregious plagiarism results in immediate rejection, while minor overlaps prompt a recommendation for the authors to revise. If plagiarism is identified during the review process, all proceedings come to a standstill. The Editor-in-Chief then seeks an explanation from the authors. An unsatisfactory response or admission of guilt leads to the manuscript's rejection. If post-publication, an article is conclusively deemed plagiarized, it will be retracted. All institutions associated with the authors will be apprised of the retraction and its cause, followed by a public announcement in the journal.