Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement

 

Journal of Ideas in Health adopts a double-blind peer review policy, in which both the authors and the reviewers are anonymous.

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 suitability of the paper for publication in the journal.

Conflicts of Interest

In case of any conflict of interest that may prejudice the report, reviewers can either contact the editor office directly or reject the review invitation. Conflicts of interest arise when professional judgment is affected by other interest, 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 it.

Confidentiality

The reviewers should not share the content of the manuscript (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 be careful to 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 competitive, collaborative, knowing 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 case, reviewers should inform the editors or journal staff and recuse themselves if they feel that they are unable to offer an impartial review.

Timely Reviews (Promptness)

Usually Journal asks the valuable reviewers to submit their reports in a timely manner, 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 and 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 has not been cited by the authors. The relevant citation should accompany any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.