Allegations of Misconduct

The Journal for Quality in Public Health (JQPH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, and accountability. The journal takes all allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously and handles them fairly, confidentially, and objectively, regardless of the identity, institutional affiliation, or position of the individuals involved.

JQPH follows established publication ethics principles and refers to the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when assessing allegations of misconduct. All concerns are evaluated on the basis of available evidence and the potential impact on the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

1. Scope of Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct may involve authors, reviewers, editors, editorial staff, or other parties involved in the journal's publication process. Potential forms of misconduct include, but are not limited to:

Fabrication and falsification: Inventing, manipulating, or misrepresenting research data, results, images, or findings.
Plagiarism: Using another person's words, ideas, data, or work without appropriate acknowledgment.
Duplicate or redundant publication: Submitting or publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or justification.
Authorship misconduct: Inappropriate authorship attribution, including gift authorship, ghost authorship, or unauthorized changes to authorship.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest: Failing to disclose financial, professional, personal, or institutional interests that may influence research or editorial decisions.
Research ethics violations: Conducting research without required ethical approval or consent, or failing to comply with applicable research ethics requirements.
Citation manipulation: Inappropriately adding, requesting, or coordinating citations to artificially increase citation metrics.
Peer-review misconduct: Breaching confidentiality, manipulating the peer-review process, impersonating reviewers, or engaging in other unethical reviewing practices.
Misuse of artificial intelligence: Using generative AI to fabricate data, references, or research findings, misrepresenting AI-generated content, or violating the journal's AI policy.
Other unethical practices: Any other conduct that may compromise the validity, originality, transparency, or integrity of scholarly publishing.

An allegation is not, by itself, proof of misconduct. Each case will be assessed individually and based on the available evidence.

2. Reporting Allegations

Any individual who identifies a potential case of research or publication misconduct may report the concern to the Editor-in-Chief or the journal's official editorial contact.

Reports should, where possible, include:

The title and publication details of the article or manuscript concerned.
A clear description of the suspected misconduct.
Supporting evidence, such as relevant documents, data, publications, correspondence, or specific examples.
The name and contact details of the person submitting the report, where they are willing to provide them.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when sufficient information is provided to permit a meaningful assessment. Reports should be made in good faith and should not be used to harass, intimidate, or unfairly discredit individuals.

3. Initial Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal's responsibilities and whether sufficient information is available for further examination.

The initial assessment may involve checking the submitted evidence, reviewing the relevant manuscript or published article, examining related publications, and determining whether additional information is required.

Where an allegation involves the Editor-in-Chief, a member of the editorial team, or another person with a potential conflict of interest, the matter will be referred to an independent editor or another appropriate person who is not involved in the allegation.

4. Investigation Procedure

If the initial assessment identifies a credible concern, JQPH may undertake further examination proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the allegation.

The journal may:

Contact the corresponding author or relevant individuals to request an explanation or supporting documentation.
Seek clarification from co-authors, reviewers, editors, or other relevant parties when appropriate.
Consult independent experts or external advisers where specialized assessment is necessary.
Request additional information from the relevant institution, research organization, ethics committee, or other appropriate body.
Refer the matter to the institution responsible for the research when a formal investigation is required or when the journal lacks the authority or resources to establish the facts independently.

The journal will provide relevant parties with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the concerns, where appropriate. All assessments will be conducted impartially and without presuming misconduct before the available evidence has been evaluated.

JQPH does not replace the formal investigative authority of research institutions or other competent bodies. Where necessary, the journal will cooperate with such bodies while maintaining editorial independence.

5. Confidentiality and Protection Against Retaliation

Allegations and related communications will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair assessment, applicable law, and publication ethics requirements.

Information will be shared only with individuals who need it to assess or investigate the concern. The journal will make reasonable efforts to protect the privacy and professional interests of individuals who raise concerns in good faith, as well as those who are the subject of allegations.

Retaliation, intimidation, or harassment directed at individuals who report concerns in good faith will not be tolerated. Knowingly submitting false or malicious allegations may itself raise ethical concerns.

6. Possible Editorial Actions

Editorial action will depend on the nature of the allegation, the strength of the evidence, the responses received, and the effect of the issue on the reliability of the scholarly record.

Possible actions include:

Requesting clarification, additional evidence, or corrections from the authors.
Requiring revision of a manuscript before further consideration.
Rejecting a manuscript when serious ethical or integrity concerns are established or remain unresolved.
Suspending editorial processing while a significant concern is being assessed.
Publishing a correction or clarification for an article containing a material error.
Publishing an expression of concern when substantial questions remain unresolved and readers need to be informed.
Retracting a published article when the evidence demonstrates that retraction is warranted under the journal's retraction policy.
Notifying or referring the matter to the relevant institution, research organization, ethics committee, or other competent authority where appropriate.

The journal will not impose a predetermined sanction solely because an allegation has been made. Decisions will be proportionate to the established facts and the applicable publication ethics policies.

7. Allegations Concerning Submitted Manuscripts

When an allegation concerns a manuscript under review, JQPH may pause the review process while the concern is assessed. The journal may request further information from the authors or refer the matter to an appropriate institution or authority.

If serious misconduct is established, or if essential ethical requirements cannot be demonstrated, the manuscript may be rejected. If the available evidence is inconclusive, the journal will consider the circumstances and determine an appropriate course of action without making unsupported findings of misconduct.

8. Allegations Concerning Published Articles

When an allegation concerns an article already published in JQPH, the journal will assess whether the concern affects the article's accuracy, ethical acceptability, or reliability.

Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction in accordance with its Correction and Retraction Policy. Any notice will clearly identify the affected article, explain the reason for the action to the extent appropriate, and maintain a transparent record of the editorial decision.

The journal will seek to preserve the scholarly record and will not remove a published article solely because it is controversial or because an allegation has been made.

9. Appeals and Further Information

Individuals directly affected by an editorial decision arising from an allegation may submit a reasoned appeal to the journal, providing relevant new evidence or explaining why the procedure or decision should be reconsidered.

An appeal will be reviewed by an editor or other appropriate person who was not directly involved in the original decision, where practicable. The journal may decline repetitive appeals that do not provide new information or a substantive basis for reconsideration.

Where concerns remain unresolved or involve matters beyond the journal's authority, JQPH may recommend that the matter be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

10. Record-Keeping and Policy Review

The journal will maintain appropriate records of allegations, correspondence, evidence considered, actions taken, and decisions made, subject to applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

JQPH will periodically review this policy to ensure that its procedures remain consistent with recognized publication ethics principles and evolving standards of scholarly publishing.

The journal is committed to addressing allegations of misconduct responsibly, protecting the integrity of the scholarly record, and promoting trust in public health research and scientific communication.