The purpose of enforcing publication ethics policy is, to make sure that the scientific publications are of the highest quality, reinforce public trust in scientific findings, and make sure that people receive credit for their efforts, and research. JEBMH follows guidelines laid down by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/core-practices), DOAJ (https://doaj.org/publishers), ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/) and WAME (http://wame.org/policies).
Articles submitted to JEBMH after approval of the editor, will be subjected to double blind peer review (identities of authors will not be revealed to the peer reviewers and identities of the peer reviewers will not be revealed to the authors). JEBMH may in addition to peer reviewers invite subject experts to review the article if serious ethical, security or societal issues are noted in the article.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, to "plagiarize" means: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own. to use (another's production) without crediting the source. to commit literary theft. to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
Authors should refrain from using text, images, and ideas of others without attribution. Authors should make sure that they have cited all sources while preparing the article.
JEBMH uses Similarity Check (https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/) by Crossref along with other methods for detecting overlap in all submitted manuscripts.
Articles that are found to have been plagiarized from an article written by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will be rejected and the authors will incur sanctions. Published articles will be corrected or retracted.
Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
JEBMH considers only original content, i.e. articles that have not been previously published, including in a language other than English. Articles submitted to JEBMH should not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere will incur sanctions.
If authors have prepared manuscripts based on their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, they must inform the editorial board of JEBMH and must cite the previous articles. If authors reuse their own words outside the ‘Methods’ appropriate citation must be given. If author wants to reproduce his/her own figures or substantial amounts of text, he/she should obtain permission from the copyright holder and the author/s is/are responsible for the same.
JEBMH will consider extended versions of articles published at conferences provided this is declared in the acknowledgement/declaration section, previous version is clearly cited and discussed, there is significant new content, and all necessary permissions are obtained.
Redundant publication (‘salami’ slicing of publications), means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same study. It will result in rejection or a request to merge submitted manuscripts, and the correction of published articles and retraction of the later article. Authors will incur sanctions.
Authors can submit articles which have been uploaded in preprint servers. Authors should inform JEBMH about the same at the time of submission. Authors should update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article. Authors may also post the final published version of the article immediately after publication.
Authors trying to increase the number of citations by submitting articles whose primary purpose is to manipulate the citations to a particular author’s publication, will incur sanctions.
Fabrication and Falsification
If during the review process or after publication, it is found that the author has fabricated or falsified data, the author/s will incur sanctions and published articles will be retracted.
Authorship and Acknowledgements
All contributors listed as authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. Authors can go through the following page for further details regarding ‘Author’ and ‘Non-Author’ contributors-
If there is any change to authorship, the authors should communicate the same to JEBMH. All non-author contributors should be acknowledged with their permission. Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered.
Conflicts of Interest
Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how transparently conflicts of interest are handled during the planning, implementation, writing, peer review, editing, and publication of scientific work. The potential for conflict of interest and bias exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.
Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable, the ones most often judged to represent potential conflicts of interest and thus the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. Other interests may also represent or be perceived as conflicts, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs.
Authors should avoid entering in to agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyse and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose. Policies that dictate where authors may publish their work violate this principle of academic freedom. Authors may be required to provide the journal with the agreements in confidence.
Purposeful failure to report those relationships or activities specified on the journal’s disclosure form is a form of misconduct.
Authors can the following web page of ICMJE for more information regarding conflicts of Interest-
Conflicts include the following:
• Financial — funding and other payments, goods and services received or expected by the authors relating to the subject of the work or from an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
• Affiliations — being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
• Intellectual property — patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization
• Personal — friends, family, relationships, and other close personal connections
• Ideology — beliefs or activism, for example, political or religious, relevant to the work
• Academic — competitors or someone whose work is critiqued
If JEBMH comes to a conclusion that an author has breached the publication ethics policy of JEBMH, whether or not the breach occurred in JEBMH, the following sanctions will be applied-
. Articles submitted by the author will be rejected.
. Author will not be allowed to submit new articles for a period of 1 to 5 years.
. He/She cannot participate in JEBMH either as a reviewer or as an editor.
Communication regarding suspected breaches of publication ethics policies, either before or after publication, as well as concerns about research ethics, can be sent to [email protected] Claimants will be kept anonymous if requested.
JEBMH may ask the authors to provide underlying data and images, approach subject experts, contact institutions or employers during the course of investigation.
Corrections and Retractions
A published article can be retracted in the following situations-
1. There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either because of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
3. If it constitutes plagiarism.
4. If it reports unethical research.
An expression of concern is issued in the following situations-
1. Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
2. There is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
3. They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
4. An investigation is underway, but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
A correction is issued in the following situations-
1. Small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error).
2. Author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
Authors can visit the following COPE page for further information regarding corrections and retractions-
Reviewers should follow the below policy while reviewing for JEBMH-
On Receiving an Invitation to Review an Article
1. Familiarise with reviewer instructions, review model, and reviewer policy of JEBMH.
2. Inform JEBMH at the earliest if you are unable to review the article.
3. Inform JEBMH at the earliest if the article is not is your domain of expertise.
4. Inform JEBMH if you are unable to review the article within the stipulated time frame.
5. Inform JEBMH regarding any conflicts of interests (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious) in reviewing the article.
6. Review an article from JEBMH according to the policies of JEBMH again, if you have reviewed the same article submitted through another journal.
7. While suggesting alternate reviewers, suggest suitable reviewers without considering the outcome of the review.
8. Decline to review if you have no intention of submitting a review, if you are unable to provide fair and unbiased review, if you are involved in preparation of the manuscript, if you have come across a very similar manuscript submitted to another journal or if you do not agree with the review model of JEBMH. Inform JEBMH the reason for your decision.
Peer reviewers should:
1. Inform JEBMH regarding any conflicts of interest which were not obvious at the time of receiving the article.
2. Inform JEBMH as early as possible, if the article is not is your domain of expertise.
3. Please do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including your junior researchers without written permission from JEBMH. Your names should be mentioned in the review report so that JEBMH can record the same so that they can be acknowledged for your work in future.
4. Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
5. Inform JEBMH if you expect any delay in submitting the review report.
6. Inform JEBMH of any ethical issues in the article.
7. Review the article fairly and without prejudice of any kind.
8. not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.
During Preparation of Review Report
Peer reviewers should:
1. bear in mind that JEBMH depends on the reviewer for his/her expertise in the domain, and is expecting an honest and fair assessment of the manuscript.
2. make clear at the beginning of the review if you have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
3. follow instructions of JEBMH on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized.
4. be objective and constructive in your reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve your manuscript.
5. not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
6. be specific in your criticisms, and help editors in their evaluation and decision.
7. Provide suggestions to the author and avoid over editing the article.
8. Provide suggestions to the authors regarding language corrections as all authors may not have studied English as their first language.
9. Refrain from making negative comments on competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.
10. Comments to the editor should be consistent with comments to the authors.
11. Should not involve in citation manipulation of any kind.
Expectations Post Review
Peer reviewers should:
1. Maintain confidentiality with regard to the review at all times.
2. Feel free to contact JEBMH if you would like to revise your review.
3. Promptly review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts that you have reviewed.
General Duties and Responsibilities
Editors should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors, strive to constantly improve their journal, have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish, champion freedom of expression, maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Editors should also actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes. They should be aware of new developments with regard to peer review and publishing. They should reassess their journal’s processes in the light of new findings. They should persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, and persuade experts for guidance from experts. They should support initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct. They should support initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics. They should assess the effects of their journal policies on author- and reviewer-behaviour and revise policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct. They should ensure that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context. Responsibilities towards Readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was. Editors should ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate). They should ensure that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified. They should adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical processes. They should edit and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. MIAME, CONSORT). They should develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles. They should adopt authorship- or contributorship-systems that promote good and discourage misconduct. They should inform the readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation
Responsibilities towards Authors
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code. Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.
Editors should revise author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines (e.g. ICMJE, Responsible research publication: international standards for authors). Editors should publish relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. Editors should ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests). Editor should respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable. Editors should follow COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship. Editors should publish details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts). Editors should publish submission and acceptance dates for articles.
Responsibilities towards Editors
Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
Editors should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation), should encourage reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism, consider providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches), send reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks seek to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal, encourage academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process, monitor the performance of peer reviewers and take steps to ensure this is of high standard, develop and maintain a database of suitable reviewers and update this on the basis of reviewer performance, cease to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews, ensure that the reviewer database reflects the community of their journal and add new reviewers as needed, use a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases), follow the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.
Responsibilities towards Editorial Board
Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Editors should have policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review, identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal, regularly review the composition of the editorial board provide clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include acting as ambassadors for the journal, supporting and promoting the journal, seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions, reviewing submissions to the journal, accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area, attending and contributing to editorial board meetings, consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.
Relations with Journal Owners and Publishers
The relationship of editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence. Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from the journal owner/publisher. Editors should have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with the journal’s owner and/or publisher. The terms of this contract should be in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Editors should also establish mechanisms to handle disagreements between themselves and the journal owner/publisher with due process and communicate regularly with their journal’s owner and publisher.
Editorial and Peer Review Processes
Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
The editors should ensure that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management, keep themselves informed about research into peer review and technological advances, adopt peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves, review peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible. refer troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flow charts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected, consider the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally.
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Editors should have systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised and base decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance such as CONSORT) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.
Protecting Personal Data
Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g. between doctors and patients). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognise themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Editors should publish their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors. Consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
Promoting Ethical Research
Editors should endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally accepted guidelines (e.g. the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research). Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Editors should be prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed. They should ensure that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participants. Editor should ensure that reports of experiments on, or studies of, animals cite compliance with the US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or other relevant guidelines. Editor should appoint a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically.
Dealing with Possible Misconduct
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable. Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate. Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record
Editors should correct errors, inaccurate or misleading statements promptly and with due prominence. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Editors should take steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered), ensure that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central), have systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available.
Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Editors should adopt systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised), support authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism, be prepared to work with their publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright or not.
Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal. Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond. Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Editors should be open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE. Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.
Editor should make sure that journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments). Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Editors should publish a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.), ensure that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal, ensure that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. Editors should ensure that journals have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.
Editors should publish lists of relevant interests (financial, academic and other kinds) of all editorial staff and members of editorial boards (which should be updated at least annually).
(Source- DOAJ, COPE, ICMJE, WAME)