Ethics and Malpractice Statement:
The JHIDC is committed to publishing and disseminating high-quality content publications. Our publication ethics and malpractice statement is based, on its large part, on the guidelines and standards 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 expression of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Journal.
ARTICLE RETRACTION AND CORRECTION
In compliance with the recommendations of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the editorial staff of the Journal of Health Informatics in Developing Countries can issue a retraction of a publication (withdraw its text)
Grounds for retraction (withdrawal) of the article are the following:
- there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation),
- redundant publication of an article (or its substantial part) in several periodicals;
- there is a report of unethical research
- incorrect list of the authors (such as a person who made a substantive contribution to conducting the research have been omitted, and/or person who has not participated in the authorship of the manuscript text has been included);
Notices of Retraction:
- Be linked to the retracted article
- Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
- Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects, with a clear indication on who is retracting the article and its reason
Procedure of Retraction:
- Upon the author’s or any other person’s inquiry providing facts of research ethics violation in the paper, the journal’s editorial board appoints a commission to conduct a comprehensive study of the case, taking into consideration all the evidence and options of re-examining the publication ethics;
- If an investigation is underway that might result in the retraction of an article JHIDC may choose to alert readers by publishing an expression of concern.
- If the journal detects flawed data in only a small section of the publication (which contains solid data otherwise), correction is implemented by replacing the pdf-file of the article and indicating the error in that file and its pages on the journal website.
Correction will be issued by the Journal when:
- Only a small portion of a Chapter is flawed in a way that does not severely affect any findings.
- It is determined that the scientific community would be better served by a Correction rather than a Retraction, and will be issued as an ERRATUM.
In the case of Retraction or removal of the Work, the publisher will be under no obligation to refund the publication fee.
Duties of Authors
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 contain adequate detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements 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 unethical publishing behavior. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must properly 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.
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.
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.