Publication Ethics

Ethics and Malpractice Statement:

The JHIDC is committed in publishing and disseminating high-quality content publications. Our publication ethics and malpractice statement is based, on its large part, on the guidelines and standard developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The appropriate duties and responsibilities of each individual are as set below:

 

Responsibility of the Editor

The editor-in-chief’s responsibility is to determine which submissions to the journal will be published. He/she must ensure that decisions are made on the basis of the manuscript’s merit and that the author’s race, gender, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, or citizenship are not considered.The Editor may consult his editorial team, as well as with reviewers, in making publication decisions.

The editors will assess manuscript for its intellectual content without regard to the race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). They will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances, the Journal of Health Informatics for Developing Countries editorial board members, as appropriate. Additionally, the editors will make every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind review process by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of a manuscript to the reviewers of that manuscript, and vice versa.
When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to the rigor of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to society’s stock of knowledge, the editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of the reported research. They will question whether the benefits outweigh the harms in the particular study’s case. Since JHIDC welcomes the submission of manuscripts from any country, it is necessary to recognize that laws and regulations regarding research ethics and ethical approval vary worldwide. As such, the editors may need to seek clarification in this regard with the author(s) and request that they supply a letter from the relevant institutional ethics committee or board that approved the research.
The editors will be guided by CORE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing an expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Journal.

 

Duties of Authors

 

Reporting Standards

Authors should present precise description of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Principal data should be accurately indicated in the paper, which should containadequate detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements engenderunethical behavior and may result to the article’s non-publication.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are 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 applicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have entirely written original works. Work and/or statement taken from other articles/journals should be appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

It is unacceptable for authors to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, therefore constitutes an unethical publishing behavior. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors must proper acknowledge the work of others especially publications that significantly helped in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Only those who have given significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study should be listed as authors. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

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.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

It is the author’s responsibility to promptly notify the journal editor or publication of any error/inaccuracy in his/her on published works. Full cooperation from the authors should be provided while retracting/correcting the paper.

 

 

Responsibility of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions. Editorial communications with the author that may assist the author in improving the paper will be considered acceptable.

Promptness

Referee(s) who feels unqualified to review the research or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should promptly notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated with confidentiality and should not be in any way, whether in part or in full be discussed with other, except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Views expressed by the referees should at all time be made clearly accompanied with supporting arguments.

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. It is the reviewer’s responsibility to call 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.

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, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.