Publication Ethics

The Journal of Public Health and Nursing (JPHN) adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and upholds the highest standards of integrity in scientific publishing.

This document outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher (Abhinaya Group). These guidelines aim to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness throughout the publication process.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play
   Editors evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
2. Confidentiality
   Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential, disclosing information only to the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial advisers as necessary.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
   Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors.
4. Publication Decisions
   The editorial board is responsible for deciding which manuscripts to publish based on their significance, originality, and relevance. Decisions should also adhere to legal requirements such as those concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
5. Peer Review Management
   Editors should ensure a fair and thorough peer review process, selecting qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards
   Authors must present an accurate account of their research, providing an objective discussion of its significance. The manuscript should include sufficient detail and references to enable replication. Deliberately inaccurate or misleading statements are unethical and unacceptable.
2. Originality and Plagiarism
   Authors must ensure their work is entirely original. If they use the work or words of others, this must be appropriately cited. Plagiarism, in all forms, is unethical and unacceptable.
3. Data Access and Retention
   Authors may be required to provide raw data for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access if feasible. Authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
   Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently or publishing the same research in more than one journal constitutes unethical behavior and is prohibited.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources
   Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be provided. Authors should cite all relevant publications that have influenced their research.
6. Authorship of the Paper
   Authorship should be limited to individuals who made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All contributors should be listed as co-authors, and the corresponding author must ensure all co-authors approve the final manuscript.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
   Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial or other substantive factors that may influence the research. All funding sources should be declared.
8. Approval from Ethics Committees
   For research involving human or animal subjects, authors must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and provide evidence of ethical approval. The Ethics Committee's decision letter, including the approval number, should be included in the submission.
9. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
   If authors discover significant errors in their published work, they are obliged to notify the editor immediately and cooperate to retract or correct the manuscript.
10. Hazards and Ethical Compliance
    Authors must clearly state any potential hazards associated with their research, including procedures, chemicals, or equipment.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
   Peer reviewers assist the editor in making publication decisions and may provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their manuscripts.
2. Promptness
   Reviewers who feel unqualified or unable to review a manuscript promptly should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
3. Confidentiality
   Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others without explicit authorization from the editor.
4. Standards of Objectivity
   Reviews should be conducted objectively, with constructive feedback supported by clear arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources
   Reviewers should identify relevant works not cited by the authors. Any significant overlap with other published material should also be reported to the editor.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
   Reviewers must not review manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or funding sources associated with the research.