Publication Ethics Statement
The Journal of Human Services Scholarship and Interprofessional Collaboration, (JHSSIC) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. We require editors, reviewers, and authors to adhere best-practice and ethical guidelines.
Duties of Editors
Equal opportunities and editorial independence
Editors do not consider the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation when making their decisions about manuscripts. Instead, they focus solely on the manuscript's academic merit (importance, originality, validity of the study, clarity). Journal editorial and publication decisions are made independently of government or other agency policies. The editorial content and publication schedule of the journal are entirely within the control of the Editor-in-Chief.
Except for the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher (where applicable), editors and editorial staff will not reveal any information about a submitted article to anybody.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unless given permission to do so in writing by the authors, editors and members of the editorial board will not use any unpublished materials found in a submitted manuscript for their own research. The editors will not utilize any proprietary knowledge or ideas gained from working on the text for their own gain. If an editor has any kind of conflict of interest (whether it be a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship/connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the articles), they will not review the manuscript and will instead ask another editor to do so.
All submitted manuscripts that are being considered for publication are subjected to peer review by at least two experts in the field. Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief for publication based on a number of criteria, including but not limited to: the validity of the work, the significance of the work to researchers and readers, the comments made by reviewers, and any applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Before making the decision, the Chief Editor may consult other editors or reviewers.
Investigation participation and collaboration
When ethical issues with a submitted manuscript or published paper are brought up, editors (together with the publisher) will take appropriate action. Even if an act of unethical publishing behavior is found years after publication, it will still be investigated. If an investigation reveals that the ethical concern is valid, the journal will publish a correction, retraction, statement of concern, or other pertinent remark.
Contributing to editorial decisions
Peer review editors make editorial decisions and may help authors improve their submissions through editorial interactions with editors. Peer review is a crucial element of formal scholarly communication.
In a case that a referee declines an invitation to examine a manuscript because they are inadequate to do so or because a timely review is impossible, they should notify the editors immediately so that they can find someone else.
Manuscripts sent for peer review are considered confidential and should not be shared with anyone outside of the review process without the express permission of the journal's Chief Editor. When invited reviewers turn down the opportunity, the same rule applies.
Criteria for impartiality
Reviewers should be impartial, and writers should be able to use reviewers' comments and suggestions to strengthen the paper. It is not proper to have personal criticism against the authors.
Acknowledgement of sources
The role of the reviewers is to find relevant published work that the writers have neglected to cite. The appropriate citation should be included with each assertion that is an observation, derivation, or argument documented in previous works. Any significant overlap between the submitted paper and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which the reviewer is aware should be brought to the attention of the editors.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Reviewers who have conflicts of interest because they are competitors, collaborators, or otherwise connected to the authors, companies, or institutions involved with the manuscript and the work described therein are expected to immediately notify the editors of their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review.
Reviewers should not exploit the authors' unpublished findings from a submitted publication in their own studies without their permission. The reviewer shall keep any confidential or proprietary information or ideas gained through peer review. When invited reviewers turn down the opportunity, the same rule applies.
Duties of Authors
Authors of original research should include a detailed overview of the methods used and the data obtained, as well as an unbiased analysis of the study's relevance. It is expected that the publication will include enough information and citations for others to reproduce the study. Critical analyses ought to be precise, impartial, and all-encompassing; editorial "opinion" or "perspective" pieces, on the other hand, should be labeled as such. Making false or intentionally misleading claims is unethical and should be avoided.
Possession of data and retention
Authors should be ready to make their raw data publicly available if requested by the editorial board during the review process for their publication. If participants' privacy can be preserved and private data rights do not prevent its release, writers should make their data publicly available (ideally through an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center) for at least 10 years after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
All content submitted must be the author's own work or properly cited if it contains any parts of someone else's work or words. The manuscript should also include references to any relevant publications that have informed the direction of the study described therein. Plagiarism can take various forms, from presenting someone else's work as one's own to plagiarizing large chunks of another's work (without proper citation) to taking credit for the findings of someone else's research. Plagiarism, in any of its many manifestations, is a serious ethical breach in the publishing process.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
No more than one journal or primary publication should host papers detailing essentially the same research. Consequently, authors should not submit the work that has already appeared in another publication. Concurrent submission to multiple journals is unethical publication behavior.
The Manuscript's Authorship
Only those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the study, who have drafted the manuscript or have critically revised it for important intellectual content, and who have seen and approved the final version of the paper as well as agreed to its submission should be listed as authors in the manuscript. All people who contributed significantly to the work described in the article but did not meet the requirements for authorship (e.g., technical support, writing and editing aid, general support) should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after receiving their written consent. The corresponding author should make sure that the author list includes only appropriate coauthors (as defined above) and excludes any inappropriate coauthors. They should also confirm that all coauthors have seen the final draft of the manuscript, approved it, and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest that could be seen as influencing the results or their interpretation should be disclosed as early as feasible (often by completing a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript). Financial conflicts of interest, such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers' bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, and non-financial conflicts of interest, such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs related to the subject matter or materials d, are examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed. It's important to be transparent about where the funding came from (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should check the manuscript regarding plagiarism and make sure to reference any sources that played a role in shaping the work presented. Without the express, written agreement of the source, information received privately (via conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) may not be utilized or publicized. Without the express written consent of the author(s) of the work involved in providing confidential services, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, the author should not utilize the information gained in the process of providing these services.
Hazards, and Test Subjects (Human or Animal)
The authors must make it explicit in the manuscript whether the work involves the use of any potentially harmful chemicals, methods, or equipment. If the study included human or animal subjects, the authors should include a statement in the publication stating that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and institutional norms and that approval was granted by the relevant institutional committee(s). A statement stating informed permission was acquired from all human subjects should be included in the manuscript. Human subjects must always be afforded the protection of their right to privacy.
By submitting their work for peer review, authors are expected to collaborate completely with editors by providing requested data, clarifications, and evidence of ethics approval, patient consents, and copyright clearances as soon as possible. If the initial decision about manuscript is "revisions necessary," authors should address the reviewers' concerns systematically, point by point, and in a timely way, making the necessary changes to the manuscript and resubmitting it to the journal by the specified due date.
Fundamental errors in published works
If the author of a published work discovers substantial errors or inaccuracies, they have a responsibility to contact the journal's editors or publisher as soon as possible and work with them to issue an erratum or withdraw the paper, as appropriate. It is the authors' responsibility to promptly rectify or withdraw the paper, or to give evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper, if the editors or publisher discovers from a third party that a published work contains a serious error or inaccuracy.
Duties of the Publisher
Handling unethical behavior
The publisher will work closely with the editors to clarify the situation and revise the article if allegations of scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism are made. This may take the form of an immediate erratum, clarification, or, in the worst instance, the complete withdrawal of the offending work from circulation. Neither the publisher nor the editors should ever actively promote or knowingly allow research misconduct to occur. Instead, they should take all necessary procedures to detect and remove from publication any publications in which such misconduct has been found to have taken place.