Publication Ethics Policy

Standards on Research and Publication Misconduct and the Journal's Response Procedures

Journal of Health Promotion Perspectives

1. Purpose and Guiding Principles

This policy sets out the standards that govern research and publication integrity at the Journal of Health Promotion Perspectives. It draws on the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and applicable national guidance on research publication ethics. Its purpose is to safeguard trust in the scholarly record, support openness in scientific reporting, and hold all parties to the publication process accountable for their conduct.

The journal is committed to examining every allegation of misconduct with equal seriousness, whether it concerns a manuscript still under review or an article already in print. Consistent with COPE's approach and with national ethical guidance, such allegations are handled confidentially, without bias, and strictly on the basis of the evidence presented. Compliance with this policy is expected of authors, reviewers, editorial board members, and editorial office staff alike.

Where appropriate, the editorial team applies the relevant COPE flowcharts, which lay out step-by-step guidance for handling ethics concerns such as plagiarism, manipulated images, undeclared conflicts of interest, misconduct by reviewers, and problems identified in work that has already been published.

2. Categories of Misconduct

2.1 Misconduct in the Conduct of Research

Misconduct in research generally falls into one of three categories.

Fabrication. Inventing data or results and then recording or reporting them as genuine — for instance, generating charts or graphs from data that were never actually collected.

Falsification. Manipulating research materials, equipment, or procedures, or altering or omitting data and results, in a way that misrepresents the research in the published record. This can include doctoring images — for example merging separate images into what is presented as a single experiment, or adjusting brightness or contrast in only part of an image — as well as discarding inconvenient outliers or presenting a selective, unrepresentative slice of the data.

Plagiarism. Presenting someone else's ideas, methods, results, or exact language as one's own without proper credit, including copying text verbatim from an earlier publication or failing to cite work that should have been acknowledged.

It should be noted that honest mistakes and legitimate scientific disagreement are not considered research misconduct.

2.2 Misconduct in the Publication Process

Duplicate submission. Submitting the same manuscript to two or more journals at once, or publishing a paper that has already appeared elsewhere.

Self-plagiarism / redundant publication. Reusing text or data from one's own earlier publications without citing that work or obtaining permission from whoever holds the copyright. This is among the most common ethical problems editors encounter.

Salami slicing. Splitting the results of one study into several thin papers, none of which stands as a meaningful contribution on its own.

Authorship manipulation. Dropping someone from the author list who has earned authorship, adding someone who did not make a genuine scholarly contribution, or reordering authors' names without justification.

Citation manipulation. Citing sources inaccurately, pressuring authors to cite particular works (including one's own), or referencing sources that are unreliable or scientifically unsound.

Undisclosed or misattributed use of artificial intelligence. Using AI tools to generate content, analyze data, or draft manuscript text without disclosing that use, or crediting AI-generated material to a human author.

2.3 Conflicts of Interest

Undisclosed conflict of interest. Failing to disclose any financial, personal, institutional, or scholarly interest that might reasonably affect an author's judgment, work, or manuscript. Authors must disclose relevant financial ties, including employment, consulting arrangements, honoraria, equity holdings, royalties, and grants they have received or have pending.

3. How Misconduct Reports Are Reviewed

3.1 Intake

Any allegation of misconduct — whether it comes from a reviewer, a reader, a research collaborator, or anyone else — is logged through the editorial office. Whoever raises the concern is kept confidential, and their identity is disclosed only if the law requires it. The journal maintains confidential channels for submitting concerns and safeguards those who raise them from retaliation.

3.2 Initial Screening

The editorial team first considers whether the allegation appears well-founded and whether it actually describes research misconduct. In some cases, what looks like a complaint is really a difference of opinion about how to interpret data or which statistical approach to use, rather than evidence of misconduct. The team also considers whether the person raising the concern might have a conflict of interest of their own.

If the editor-in-chief judges that misconduct is plausible, the corresponding author and all co-authors are notified and asked to respond. Authors are expected to acknowledge the notice promptly and confirm that a formal reply is forthcoming.

3.3 Evaluating the Authors' Reply

Once the authors have responded, the editor-in-chief and the editorial board assess what they have submitted. Where useful, the journal may bring in outside expertise — a statistical reviewer, for instance, or another independent specialist. In most cases, the authors' explanation and any supporting material are enough to determine whether misconduct is likely.

3.4 Escalation to Institutional or National Bodies

If the authors' explanation does not resolve the matter, or real doubt remains, the editor-in-chief will confidentially alert the research ethics committee at the sponsoring institution, as well as the relevant head or officer at the authors' workplace or academic institution, so the matter can be formally investigated. In serious cases, the issue may also be referred to the National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Research.

If, after reviewing the authors' initial response, the editor finds it unconvincing or one-sided, the editor may approach the relevant institution directly to request a formal review or further inquiry. At this point the journal may also publish an Expression of Concern noting that the work is under review for possible validity issues.

Where a closer look is warranted, the host institution may examine the underlying data, the article itself, related publications, and the analyses performed. In other situations, the original authors may be asked to reanalyze their data, or an independent statistician may be brought in to do so.

3.5 Response Timeline

Authors have up to two months to submit their explanation. If nothing is received in that time, or if what is submitted fails to resolve the concern, the journal proceeds according to the escalation steps described above.

4. Corrective and Disciplinary Actions

Once misconduct has been confirmed — either through the editor-in-chief's own inquiry or through a finding by a qualified research ethics committee — the editor-in-chief may impose one or more of the following responses, scaled to how serious the misconduct is.

4.1 Before Publication

• Declining to publish the manuscript, provided it has not yet appeared in print and is still under review.

  4.2 After Publication

  Correction. Where an honest, unintentional error is found, a correction is published in a subsequent issue.

  Expression of Concern. Where serious concerns exist but the evidence does not yet support retraction, a public notice is issued to alert readers.

  Retraction. Retraction is warranted when:

  Retraction should proceed without delay once the editor is satisfied that a serious problem exists, that the work misleads readers, or that COPE's retraction criteria are met; the decision, once made, should not be postponed.

  Every retracted article must be marked as retracted wherever it appears — in the abstract, the full text, and the PDF — and the original article and the retraction notice must be linked to each other in both directions.

  4.3 Restrictions and Exclusion

• Barring the offending author(s) from submitting new manuscripts for a set period, typically one to five years depending on how serious the misconduct was.
• Notifying outside parties, such as the author's institution, funding agency, or relevant research body, and, in serious cases, the appropriate legal authorities.

  4.4 Action Against Reviewers and Editorial Board Members

  Should a reviewer or board member be found to have engaged in misconduct, the journal follows COPE's guidance in response, which may include ending that person's association with the journal and informing their home institution.

  5. Specific Situations and How They Are Handled

  5.1 Manipulated Images

  The journal may run submitted images through integrity-screening software such as Proofig or Imagetwin. When manipulation is suspected, the applicable COPE flowchart for handling suspected image manipulation in a published article is followed, a process that involves notifying the author, requesting an explanation, and, if warranted, issuing a correction, an Expression of Concern, or a retraction.

  5.2 Misconduct by Reviewers

  If an author claims that a reviewer used their ideas or data without permission, the journal follows COPE's procedure for handling a reviewer suspected of misappropriating an author's work. Similarly, where there is reason to think the review process itself has been compromised — for example, through fabricated reviewer identities or AI-generated reviews — the corresponding COPE guidance is applied.

  5.3 Concerns About Already-Published Work

  Concerns about the integrity of a published article can be raised and investigated at any time, regardless of how long ago it appeared. The journal will not refuse to issue a retraction or Expression of Concern purely because of an article's age. Where the original data are unavailable or of limited quality, the editor decides case by case which concerns are worth pursuing further.

  5.4 Coordinated Manipulation of the Publication System

  Where there is suspicion of organized fraud or systematic gaming of the publication process — paper mills, for example — the journal relies on the relevant COPE flowcharts to identify and address such cases.

  6. Principles Underlying the Process

• Confidentiality — every stage of the review is handled with the highest degree of discretion.
• Impartiality — reviews are carried out without bias and grounded in documented evidence.
• Right of reply — accused authors are entitled to explain themselves, and their responses are given genuine consideration.
• Proportionality — any corrective action matches the severity of the misconduct involved.
• Transparency — decisions and the reasoning behind them are documented and disclosed publicly where appropriate.
• Protection of those who report concerns — their identities are kept confidential and they are shielded from retaliation.

1. The editor has clear evidence that the reported results cannot be trusted, whether because of misconduct such as data fabrication or because of an honest error in how the research or its statistics were conducted.
2. The findings have already been published in another journal without permission or proper attribution.
3. The article involves substantial, deliberate plagiarism or theft of intellectual work.
4. The reported research failed to follow required research ethics standards.

7. Agreement to These Terms

By submitting a manuscript to this journal, authors agree in full to this policy and commit to upholding its publication ethics standards. The journal reserves the right to apply the corrective and disciplinary measures described above in the event of a violation. Authors, reviewers, and editorial board members are all expected to report any instances of misconduct they become aware of to the editorial office.