Publication Ethics

Journal of Epidemiology and Public Health (JEPH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, fairness, and accountability. The journal's policies are guided by principles and recommendations of the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These policies apply to authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and other parties involved in or concerned about the journal's editorial and publication processes.

1. Research Ethics and Consent

All research involving human participants, identifiable human data or biological materials, and animals must comply with applicable ethical guidelines, regulations, and institutional requirements. Authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board before conducting the research, where required by applicable regulations and ethical standards.

Manuscripts must state the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board and the approval reference number, where applicable. Authors must also confirm that informed consent has been obtained when required and that participants' rights, privacy, confidentiality, and welfare have been adequately protected. Research involving animals must comply with applicable animal welfare standards and institutional requirements.

Unethical research practices include conducting research without required ethical approval, failing to obtain informed consent when required, violating participant confidentiality, exposing human participants or animals to unjustified harm, and misrepresenting ethical approval or consent procedures.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Ethical approval is generally not required for systematic reviews and meta-analyses based exclusively on previously published literature. However, additional ethical requirements may apply when a study involves identifiable individual-level data or other materials requiring ethical review. Registration in PROSPERO is not mandatory under JEPH policy but is strongly encouraged as good research practice.

2. Complaints and Appeals

JEPH is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, confidentially, and impartially. Complaints and appeals may concern editorial decisions, peer review conduct, editorial procedures, conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, unreasonable editorial delays, or suspected violations of research or publication ethics.

2.1. Submission of Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals must be submitted in writing to the JEPH Editorial Office through the journal's official email address: jepublichealth@gmail.com

Submissions should include the complainant's name and contact information, the manuscript title and identification number (if applicable), a clear description of the concern, and relevant supporting evidence. Complaints involving suspected research or publication misconduct may be submitted confidentially. Anonymous complaints will be considered when sufficient evidence is provided to enable an investigation.

2.2. Handling of Complaints

Upon receiving a complaint, the Editorial Office will acknowledge receipt within five working days and conduct an initial assessment to determine the nature of the concern and the appropriate handling procedure.

The complaint will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief or a designated senior editor who has not been directly involved in the matter. If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it will be referred to an independent Editorial Board member or a designated publisher representative without a conflict of interest.

The appointed handler will review the available evidence, seek clarification from relevant parties when necessary, and determine appropriate corrective actions. All parties involved will be given a fair opportunity to provide relevant information.

JEPH aims to provide a written response within 30 calendar days. If additional investigation is required, the complainant will be informed of the delay and the expected timeframe.

2.3. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, or substantial misunderstanding of the manuscript may submit a formal appeal.

Appeals must be submitted by the corresponding author within 30 calendar days of receiving the editorial decision. The appeal must include a clear justification, supporting evidence, and a point-by-point response to the relevant editorial or reviewer comments.

The appeal will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a senior editor who was not involved in the original decision. Where necessary, an independent reviewer or Editorial Board member may be consulted.

Following assessment, the original decision may be upheld, reconsidered, or referred for additional peer review. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance of the manuscript. IJM aims to communicate the appeal decision within 30 calendar days, and the final decision and its rationale will be communicated to the corresponding author in writing.

2.4. Further Review and Escalation

If a complainant believes that a complaint or appeal was not handled fairly, they may request further review by an independent Editorial Board member or a designated publisher representative who was not involved in the original investigation or decision.

The request must explain the grounds for further review and provide any relevant additional evidence. The appointed representative will assess whether the established procedures were followed and whether further action is necessary.

3. Confidentiality and Record Keeping

All complaints, appeals, investigations, and related correspondence will be treated confidentially. Information will be disclosed only to individuals directly involved in the assessment or when required by applicable ethical or legal obligations.

The outcome of each complaint or appeal will be communicated in writing through the journal's official email. The notification will include the decision, a summary of the reasons, any corrective action deemed necessary, and information on further review where applicable.

JEPH will maintain confidential records of complaints and appeals to support accountability and continuous improvement of its editorial processes.

4. Suspected Ethical Misconduct and Editorial Actions

If unethical research or publication practices are suspected or identified, JEPH may request additional documentation from the authors, consult the relevant institution or research ethics committee, and seek independent expert advice where necessary.

Depending on the nature and severity of the concern, the journal may take appropriate editorial action, including rejection of a submitted manuscript, publication of a correction, issuance of an expression of concern, or retraction of a published article. All actions will be taken in accordance with the journal's editorial policies and relevant COPE guidance, with due consideration of the available evidence, the rights of the parties involved, and the integrity of the scholarly record.