Journal of Ideas in Health
Four Issues Annually
Journal of Ideas in Health (JIDHealth) is committed to taking all possible measures against publication malpractice. JIDHealth, represented by its publisher, is responsible for guaranteeing the best publishing ethics standards by ensuring agreement on proper ethical behavior for the editorial team, authors, and peer reviewers.
Journal of Ideas in Health encourages the authors to follow the guidelines based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE' s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Authors.
Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial "opinion" works should be identified as such.
Originality and Plagiarism
Considering the originality and plagiarism: the author (s) should ensure that they have written entirely original works. The authors have used the work and words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. JIDHealth uses a Plagiarism Checker solution, and the maximum allowed score for the document in which the materials and methods and references sections are truncated is 20%. Higher scores are not allowed, and the manuscript will be returned to the authors.
Data Access and Retention
In some cases, authors may be 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, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Moreover, data collected privately, such as conversation, correspondence, and refereeing manuscripts or from confidential sources, need explicit and written permission from the source before using.
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. Where others 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 and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper. All co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Duplicate Submission and Prior Publication
According to the ICMJE recommendations, authors should not submit the same manuscript describing essentially the same research in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, manuscripts submitted for evaluation should not have been previously presented or already published in an electronic or printed medium. Publication of some articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, reflecting the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
The ICMJE considered the article as duplicate or redundant publications when that paper or article overlaps substantially with one already published, in the press, or under consideration/submission without apparent, visible reference to the previous publications. In other words, Duplicate or redundant submission is an identical manuscript (or having similar data) that is submitted to various journals at the same time. In addition to the ethical and international copyright laws violations, Duplicate publication may result in an inadvertent double-counting of data or inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study, which distorts the available evidence and the cost-effective use of resource to ensure the originality of the submitted manuscript.
According to the APA code of ethics (APA Publication Manual, 2010), authors should not attempt duplicate publications and should submit original works that represent their owns’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works; otherwise, a status of violation is considered and will lead to prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript. If the editor was not aware of the violations and the article has already been published, the article might warrant retraction with or without the author’s explanation or approval. The journal should be informed of manuscripts that have been submitted to another journal for evaluation and rejected for publication. The submission of previous reviewer reports will expedite the evaluation process.
Prior permission should be approved from the previous publisher or the copyright holder when the author re-uses a figure or table published elsewhere or copyrighted. An ethical violation could occur when the author was unaware of the copyright issues, and the material has been published. In such a case, authors are encouraged to submit duplicate material for submission to acknowledge the source of information. Any manuscripts that have been presented in a meeting should be submitted with detailed information on the organization, including the name, date, and location of the organization.
Although the Journal of Ideas in Health focuses on new, innovative, and reliable publications based on the right resources, the journal tried to prevent articles from being unsightly duplicated or subject to any other misconduct. Editors in the Journal of Ideas in Health are encouraged to follow COPE flowcharts for further guidance on handling duplicate publications.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed according to relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, grants, or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
The Editorial Board members may occasionally submit their own manuscripts for possible publication in the journal. In these cases, the peer review process will be managed by alternative board members, and the submitting Editor/Board member will have no involvement in the decision-making process.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author must promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Journal of Ideas in Health encourages the authors to follow the guidelines based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’ s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The editors of the Journal of Ideas in Health are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal are suitable for publication. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
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 conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the author's express written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if discovered years after publication.
Duties of Reviewer
Journal of Ideas in Health encourages the reviewers to follow the guidelines based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’ s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Reviewers.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is a critical evaluation process designed to maintain the quality of excellent scientific work. This process aims to give constructive feedback to authors so that their work becomes one of the highest possible academic standards. Peer reviews also assist the author in improving the paper and help the editors decide on the paper's suitability for publication in the journal.
Conflicts of Interest
If any conflict of interest may prejudice the report, reviewers can either contact the editor's office directly or reject the review invitation. Conflicts of interest arise when professional judgment is affected by other interests, for example, a financial relationship, an intellectual belief, a personal relationship, or a competition. To maintain high credibility standards, we ask reviewers to be aware of potential conflicts of interest and inform us about them.
The reviewers should not share the manuscript's content (including the summary or abstract) with another person except as authorized by the editor. Double-blind peer review is a confidential process where both the author and the reviewer must keep the content confidential. Auditors should inform the Editorial Office if they prefer a student or colleague to write the review on their behalf.
Disclosure and 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 a competitive, collaborative, known history of antipathy with the author(s), possibility to profit financially from the work or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. In such a case, reviewers should inform the editors or journal staff and recuse themselves if they feel that they cannot offer an impartial review.
Timely Reviews (Promptness)
Usually, Journal asks the valuable reviewers to submit their reports on time, to provide a high-quality publishing service that benefits the scientific community, otherwise, reviewers have to contact the editorial office to excuse themselves from the review if they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or they know that its prompt review will be impossible. They need to extend the deadline for their review.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.