International Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences

IJHRS –Instructions to Author(s)

 

 

Information for Author(s):

 

Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with "Uniform requirements for Manuscripts submitted to Biomedical Journal" developed by international committee of medical Journal Editors.

Submission of manuscript:
o Authors should submit electronic version (Microsoft word doc) of the manuscript via e-mail (manuscript.ijhrs@gmail.com) or
o Online Submission -  http://my.ejmanager.com/ijhrs/
o Accepted papers will be acknowledged and processed further, if the papers are rejected, the decision will be communicated to the corresponding author.
o Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript would be decided after the decision of editorial team.
o Acceptance or rejection of the manuscript for publication in journal would be informed to corresponding author at the earliest.
    Preparing a Manuscript:
o Authors should keep their manuscripts as short as they reasonably can (the total number of words should not exceed 3200).
o Page number should appear in the upper right hand corner of each page, beginning with the title page.
o The language of manuscript must be simple and explicit.
o Author’s / Co-author’s name or any other identification should not appear anywhere in the body of the manuscript to facilitate blind review.

We accept manuscript under following categories:
o Original Research Articles
o Review
o Case reports
o Perspectives
o Invited Commentary
o Short communications
o Letter to Editor

 

Publication Fee

Upon acceptance, IJHRS charge Publication fee of  97 USD. There is no submission fee.

Original Research Articles:
It should be arranged into the following sections:

Title page
The title page should have the following information:

Title:
Title must be concise and should include information that will make electronic retrieval of the article both sensitive and specific.

Authors and affiliations:
The names of authors and their appropriate addresses should be given. It should be made clear which address relates to which author.

Disclaimers:
If any

Contact information for corresponding authors:
The name, mailing address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address of the author responsible for correspondence about the manuscript (the “corresponding author;” this author may or may not be the “guarantor” for the integrity of the study). The corresponding author should indicate clearly whether his or her e-mail address can be published.

Source(s) of support:
Source(s) of support in the form of grants, equipment, drugs, or all of these.

Running title:
It is a short title typed in the journal at the right top corner of right hand page of the article (except the lead page). A short running title of not more than 40 characters (including letters and spaces) should be given.

Conflict of Interest Notification Page
To prevent potential conflicts of interest from being overlooked or misplaced, this information needs to be part of the manuscript. The ICMJE has developed a uniform disclosure form for use by ICMJE member journals (http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf).

Abstract and key words

Abstract:
It must start on a new page carrying the following information: (a) Title (without author’s names or affiliations), (b) Abstract body, (c) Key words, (d) Running title. It should not exceed 250 words excluding the title and the key words. The abstract must be concise, clear and informative rather than indicative. New and important aspects must be emphasized.
The abstract must be in a structured form consisting of context or background for the study, objectives, methods (selection of study subjects or laboratory animals, observational and analytical methods), results (giving specific effect sizes and their statistical significance, if possible) and conclusions. Authors should state the main conclusions clearly and not in vague statements. The conclusions and recommendations not found in the text of the article should not be given in the abstract. Articles on clinical trials should contain abstracts that include the items that the CONSORT group has identified as essential (http://www.consort-statement.org/? =1190). Clinical trial registration number should be mentioned at the end of the abstract. Whenever a registration number is available, Authors should list that number the first time they use a trial acronym to refer to either the trial they are reporting or to other trials that they mention in the manuscript.

Key words:
Provide 3-5 keywords which will help readers or indexing agencies in cross-indexing the study. The words found in title need not be given as key words.

Introduction
It should start on a new page. Essentially this section must introduce the subject and briefly say how the idea for research originated. Provide a context or background for the study (that is, the nature of the problem and its significance). State the specific purpose or research objective of, or hypothesis tested by, the study or observation; the research objective is often more sharply focused when stated as a question. Both the main and secondary objectives should be clear, and any prespecified subgroup analyses should be described. Provide only directly pertinent references, and do not include data or conclusions from the work being reported.

Material and Methods
This section should deal with the materials used and the methodology - how the work was carried out. The procedure adopted should be described in sufficient detail to allow the study to be interpreted and repeated by the readers, if necessary. This section should include only information that was available at the time the plan or protocol for the study was being written; all information obtained during the study belongs in the Results section.

Selection and Description of Participants
Describe your selection of the observational or experimental participants (patients or laboratory animals, including controls) clearly, including eligibility and exclusion criteria and a description of the source population. Because the relevance of such variables as age and sex to the object of research is not always clear, authors should explain their use when they are included in a study report—for example, authors should explain why only participants of certain ages were included or why women were excluded. The guiding principle should be clarity about how and why a study was done in a particular way. When authors use such variables as race or ethnicity, they should define how they measured these variables and justify their relevance.

Technical Information
Identify the methods, apparatus (give the manufacturer’s name and address in parentheses), and procedures in sufficient detail to allow others to reproduce the results. Give references to established methods, including statistical methods (see below); provide references and brief descriptions for methods that have been published but are not well-known; describe new or substantially modified methods, give the reasons for using them, and evaluate their limitations. Identify precisely all drugs and chemicals used, including generic name(s), dose(s), and route(s) of administration.

Statistical Methods
Describe statistical methods with enough detail to enable a knowledgeable reader with access to the original data to verify the reported results. When possible, quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty (such as confidence intervals). Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as P values, which fail to convey important information about effect size. References for the design of the study and statistical methods should be to standard works when possible (with pages stated). Define statistical terms, abbreviations, and most symbols. Specify the computer software used.

Results
Present your results in logical sequence in the text, tables, and illustrations, giving the main or most important findings first. Do not repeat all the data in the tables or illustrations in the text; emphasize or summarize only the most important observations. Extra or supplementary materials and technical detail can be placed in an appendix where they will be accessible but will not interrupt the flow of the text, or they can be published solely in the electronic version of the journal.
When data are summarized in the Results section, give numeric results not only as derivatives (for example, percentages) but also as the absolute numbers from which the derivatives were calculated, and specify the statistical methods used to analyze them. Restrict tables and figures to those needed to explain the argument of the paper and to assess supporting data. Use graphs as an alternative to tables with many entries; do not duplicate data in graphs and tables. Avoid nontechnical uses of technical terms in statistics, such as “random” (which implies a randomizing device), “normal,” “significant,” “correlations,” and “sample.”
Where scientifically appropriate, analyses of the data by such variables as age and sex should be included.

Discussion
This section should deal with the interpretation, rather than recapitulation of results. For experimental studies, it is useful to begin the discussion by briefly summarizing the main findings, then explore possible mechanisms or explanations for these findings, compare and contrast the results with other relevant studies, state the limitations of the study, and explore the implications of the findings for future research and for clinical practice.
Link the conclusions with the goals of the study but avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not adequately supported by the data. In particular, avoid making statements on economic benefits and costs unless the manuscript includes the appropriate economic data and analyses. Avoid claiming priority or alluding to work that has not been completed. State new hypotheses when warranted, but label them clearly as such.
Acknowledgements
It should be typed in a new page. Acknowledge only persons who have contributed to the scientific content or provided technical support. Sources of financial support should be mentioned.

References
It should begin on a new page. Avoid citing abstracts as references. Papers which have been submitted and accepted but not yet published may be included in the list of references with the name of the journal and indicated as “Forth coming”. A photocopy of the acceptance letter should be submitted with the manuscript. Information from manuscript “submitted” but “not yet accepted” should not be included. Avoid using abstracts as references. The “unpublished observations” and “personal communications” may not be used as references but may be inserted (in parentheses) in the text. References are to be cited in the text by superscribed number and should be in the order in which they appear. References cited only in tables or in legends to figures should be numbered in accordance with a sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or illustration. The references must be verified by the author(s) against the original documents. The list of references should be typed double spaced following the Vancouver style.

General Considerations Related to References
Although references to review articles can be an efficient way to guide readers to a body of literature, review articles do not always reflect original work accurately. Readers should therefore be provided with direct references to original research sources whenever possible. Avoid using abstracts as references. References to papers accepted but not yet published should be designated as “in press” or “forthcoming”; authors should obtain written permission to cite such papers as well as verification that they have been accepted for publication. Information from manuscripts submitted but not accepted should be cited in the text as “unpublished observations” with written permission from the source.
Avoid citing a “personal communication” unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, obtain written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication.
Some but not all journals check the accuracy of all reference citations; thus, citation errors sometimes appear in the published version of articles. To minimize such errors, references should be verified using either an electronic bibliographic source, such as PubMed or print copies from original sources. Authors are responsible for checking that none of the references cite retracted articles except in the context of referring to the retraction. For articles published in journals indexed in MEDLINE, the ICMJE considers PubMed the authoritative source for information about retractions. Authors can identify retracted articles in MEDLINE by using the following search term, where pt in square brackets stands for publication type: Retracted publication [pt] in PubMed.

Reference Style and Format
Authors may also consult sample references (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html) , a list of examples extracted from or based on Citing Medicine for easy use by the ICMJE audience; these sample references are maintained by NLM.
References should be numbered consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Identify references in text, tables, and legends by by superscribed Arabic numerals. References cited only in tables or figure legends should be numbered in accordance with the sequence established by the first identification in the text of the particular table or figure. The titles of journals should be abbreviated according to the style used in the list of Journals Indexed for MEDLINE, posted by the NLM on the Library's Web site. The list of references should be typed double spaced following the Vancouver style.

Tables
Each table must be self-explanatory and presented in such a way that they are easily understandable without referring to the text. Type or print each table with double-spacing on a separate sheet of paper. Number tables consecutively in the order of their first citation in the text and supply a brief title for each. Do not use internal horizontal or vertical lines. Give each column a short or an abbreviated heading. Authors should place explanatory matter in footnotes, not in the heading. Explain all nonstandard abbreviations in footnotes, and use the following symbols, in sequence:
*, †, ‡, §, ||, ¶, **, ††, ‡‡, §§, ||||, ¶¶, etc.
Identify statistical measures of variations, such as standard deviation and standard error of the mean.
Be sure that each table is cited in the text.
If you use data from another published or unpublished source, obtain permission and acknowledge that source fully.
Additional tables containing backup data too extensive to publish in print may be appropriate for publication in the electronic version of the journal, deposited with an archival service, or made available to readers directly by the authors. An appropriate statement should be added to the text to inform readers that this additional information is available and where it is located. Submit such tables for consideration with the paper so that they will be available to the peer reviewers.

Figures (Illustrations)
Figures should be either professionally drawn and photographed, or submitted as electronic files of figures in a format ( JPEG or GIF) authors should review the images of such files on a computer screen before submitting them to be sure they meet their own quality standards.
For x-ray films, scans, and other diagnostic images, as well as pictures of pathology specimens or photomicrographs, send sharp, glossy, black-and-white or color photographic prints, usually 127 x 173 mm (5 x 7 inches). Letters, numbers, and symbols on figures should therefore be clear and consistent throughout, and large enough to remain legible when the figure is reduced for publication. Figures should be made as self-explanatory as possible, since many will be used directly in slide presentations. Titles and detailed explanations belong in the legends not on the illustrations themselves.
Photomicrographs should have internal scale markers. Symbols, arrows, or letters used in photomicrographs should contrast with the background.
Photographs of potentially identifiable people must be accompanied by written permission to use the photograph.
Figures should be numbered consecutively according to the order in which they have been cited in the text. If a figure has been published previously, acknowledge the original source and submit written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce the figure. Permission is required irrespective of authorship or publisher except for documents in the public domain.

Legends for Figures (Illustrations)
Type or print out legends for illustrations using double spacing, starting on a separate page, with Arabic numerals corresponding to the illustrations. When symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters are used to identify parts of the illustrations, identify and explain each one clearly in the legend. Explain the internal scale and identify the method of staining in photomicrographs.

Units of Measurement
Measurements of length, height, weight, and volume should be reported in metric units (meter, kilogram, or liter) or their decimal multiples. Temperatures should be in degrees Celsius. Blood pressures should be in millimeters of mercury. Authors should report laboratory information in both local and International System of Units (SI). Drug concentrations may be reported in either SI or mass units, but the alternative should be provided in parentheses where appropriate.

Abbreviations and Symbols
Use only standard abbreviations; use of nonstandard abbreviations can be confusing to readers. Avoid abbreviations in the title of the manuscript. The spelled-out abbreviation followed by the abbreviation in parenthesis should be used on first mention unless the abbreviation is a standard unit of measurement.

Reviews
IJHRS endorses the PRISMA statement (http://www.prisma-statement.org). Authors submitting systematic reviews are required to follow these guidelines, include a flow diagram within the manuscript, and submit the checklist.

Case reports
Case report describes the overall management of an unusual case or a condition that is infrequently encountered in practice or poorly described in the literature. The entire care of the patient "from start to finish" is described, with no one aspect of care receiving greater focus.

Perspectives
Perspectives are highly scholarly papers expounding on a specific clinical approach to patient care (on either a theoretical or practical basis) or addressing professional issues in Health care, and related areas. Perspectives contain new ideas, interpretations, and opinions and are intended to inform and advance practice in important ways. Perspectives can address translational research. Perspectives are one of the most highly cited manuscript types. Typically, these manuscripts are written by leaders in the field who set forth future directions.

Invited Commentary
Topic suggestions should be submitted to the editor, include a detailed definition of the topic and a suggestion of at least two possible authors to write the commentary. Offers to write a commentary are also accepted. If you wish to write a commentary, please contact the editor first.

Short communications
The manuscript should not be divided into sub-sections. It may have up to 1200 words (including a maximum of 5 references) and one figure or one table.

Letters to the Editor
IJHRS Letters to the Editor provide timely, thoughtful dialogue on issues of concern to the Health profession, to related disciplines, to the health care delivery system, to patients, and to all members of society who are interested in health and well-being.

Policy on Ethical Principles (Based on WAME – Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals)

Purpose of a Policy on Ethical Principles

The International Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (IJHRS) aspires to select, through peer review, the highest quality manuscripts related to Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. To achieve this, the entire peer review and publication process of the IJHRS must be thorough, objective, and fair. Every aspect of this process involves important ethical principles and decisions. The reputation of IJHRS depends on the trust of readers, authors, researchers, reviewers, editors, health professionals, research subjects and funding agencies. This trust is enhanced by describing as explicitly as possible IJHRS policies to ensure the ethical treatment of all participants in the publication process.

Study Design and Ethics

The IJHRS considers papers in which research has been conducted to high standards of quality control and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentations of data constitute scientific misconduct.

 

The IJHRS adheres to the basic principles of the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association (http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf). Present practice of the IJHRS is to ask authors of submissions to state whether their studies involved human participants, and, if so, whether they have satisfied review on ethical grounds by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or whether such an IRB has found their studies to be exempt from review. The statement on Human Participant Protection at the end of published pieces shows whether studies have been approved or exempted by a named IRB. If human participants are involved, a statement of approval by an institutional review board (IRB) and the participants’ informed consent is required. It is the responsibility of the lead author to keep a copy of the IRB approval received in his/her personal file.

 

Authorship and Acknowledgments

Authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work, some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the manuscript. For all manuscripts, the corresponding author in collaboration with co-authors must provide information on the specific contributions each author has made to the article. Simple copy-editing does not warrant co-authorship or acknowledgements.

 

Example: All authors provided concept/idea/research design. Dr Campo, Dr Weiser, and        Dr Koenig provided writing and data analysis. Dr Campo provided data collection, project management, and fund procurement. Dr Weiser and Dr Koenig provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission).

All authors must take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the manuscript, and one author must be the guarantor and take responsibility for the work as a whole.

 

Acknowledgements are acceptable for people who do not qualify as authors but provided support for the study and manuscript. Examples of suitable acknowledgements may include: people who provided assistance with technical analysis, manuscript preparation, study design, or data collection. Other entities may include funders, in-kind contributors, clinician investigators or interviewers. Additional guidance on authorship and acknowledgements is provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (available at http://www.icmje.org/#author).

 

Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest (competing interest) include facts known to a participant in the publication process that if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived (or an author, reviewer, or editor feel defensive). Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of authors, reviewers, and editors; these conflicts often are not immediately apparent to others or to the reviewer. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Financial interests may include employment, research funding (received or pending), stock or share ownership, patents, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, non-financial support, or any fiduciary interest in the company.

 

 The perception or appearance of a conflict of interest, without regard to substance, alone creates conflict, since trust is eroded among all participants.

 

All such interests (or their absence) must be declared in writing by authors upon submission of the manuscript. If any are declared, they should be published with the article. If there is doubt about whether a circumstance represents a conflict, it should be disclosed. Sources of full or partial funding or other support for the research must be declared and should be described in an acknowledgement if the manuscript is published; if anyone besides the authors is involved in analysis, interpretation, or control of the data, this must also be declared. The role of the funding organization or sponsor in the design and conduct of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript should be specified.

 

Peer reviewers for the journal should annually declare to the editor-in-chief any similar competing interests, financial or non-financial, that might affect their work for the journal. Non-financial competing interests may include a similar manuscript under review in the same or another journal, a similar research project nearing completion, a close collaboration (or competition) with one of the authors of the manuscript, etc. Additionally, any reviewer who has reason to believe he or she may have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should be required to reveal that conflict to the editor, who will then determine their appropriate level of involvement.

 

Editors can also have conflicts of interest, and members of the editorial team (just like authors and reviewers) should be required to declare any possible conflicts of interest as and when they arise (these will differ according to the level of involvement of editorial team members, but should be addressed for all). Editors assigned the review of a manuscript in which they may have a conflict of interest should refuse themselves from that supervision, and it should be reassigned to an editor with no conflict. Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team present a special instance of potential conflict of interest. The review of these manuscripts must always be supervised by the editor-in-chief, who will review the decision of the assigned decision editor for objectivity before the decision is final.

 

Peer Review

Peer review is fundamental to the publication process. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Peer reviewers selected for the IJHRS are required to meet at least minimum standards regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of manuscripts. Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific question, policy, or analytical topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and overall knowledge.

 

Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:

 

• The reviewer should have identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology.

 

• The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.

 

• The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.

 

• The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.

 

• The reviewer should provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.

 

• The reviewer should evaluate the submission on its scientific, policy, or analytic value and the robustness of its conclusions independently of his/her personal opinion on the issue.

 

• The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

 

A submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor-in-chief. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

 

Editorial Decisions

Decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, methodological rigor, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's mission. Studies with negative results, or those challenging previously published work or widely held beliefs, should receive equal consideration.

 

Statements made by authors that are defamatory or otherwise unreasonably critical towards persons or institutions may jeopardize the objectivity of the IJHRS and create ground for requested amendments to or rejection of the manuscript.

 

Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations

 

The IJHRS does not publish work that has been published elsewhere, with the exception of work that has been presented as an abstract or in a report of a scientific meeting, or reprinting of classic papers that have historical value.

 

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and includes the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

 

Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it. All previous work from the author(s) should be properly cited if used in submitted manuscripts.

Responding to Allegations of Possible Misconduct

Definitions of Misconduct

Deception may be deliberate, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by ignorance. Since the underlying goal of misconduct is to deliberately deceive others as to the truth, the journal's preliminary investigation of potential misconduct must take into account not only the particular act or omission, but also the apparent intention (as best it can be determined) of the person involved. Misconduct does not include unintentional error. The most common forms of scientific misconduct include

 

• Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.

 

• Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work (see prior section).

 

• Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.

 

• Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.

 

• Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.

 

• Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.

 

• Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation.

 

• This includes qualifications, experience, or research accomplishments to advance the research program, to obtain external funding, or for other professional advancement.

 

Responses to Possible Misconduct

Misconduct allegations will be investigated by a committee consisting of the editor-in-chief and editorial board members, as determined by the editor-in-chief, who have specific expertise in the area being investigated.

 

When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated. Those who are the subject of such allegations will be given the opportunity to respond and provide data supporting their response.

 

All such allegations should be kept confidential; the number of inquiries and those involved should be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this end. Whenever possible, references to the case in writing should be kept anonymous.

 

Journals have an obligation to readers and the public to ensure that their published research is both accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard. Therefore, if an inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses should be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions. The following options are ranked in approximate order of severity:

 

• A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.

 

• A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future such instances, where the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.

 

• A formal letter referring the concerns to the relevant head of educational institution and/or funding body, with all the commentary and evidence collected by the journal. This will occur when it is believed that genuine misconduct is likely to have occurred, and its goal will be to submit the case for consideration of formal review and judgment by organizations better suited to that task than a peer review journal.

 

• A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution that a investigation be carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in writing to the journal.

 

• Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if appropriate (and unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require approval of authors, and should be reported to their institution.

 

• Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, published in the journal, informing readers and the indexing authorities, if there is a formal finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal. It should also meet other requirements established by the International Committee of Journal Editors (www.icmje.org/#correct, accessed 05/25/07). Formal withdrawal or retraction of paper will take place only after a thorough investigation that includes due process for the author and an opportunity for the author to present a defense against any allegations before a neutral group of peers.

 

Acknowledgments: This document was drafted based on modifications to “Based on WAME – Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals” developed by the World Association of Medical Editors (http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie) as well as other resources as referenced throughout this document from organizations including the World Medical Association and the International Committee of Journal Editors.

Copyrights and Permissions

All articles published by International Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences are licensed by the respective authors (Copyright owners) of such articles for unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/).