Publications Ethics

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EDITOR FOR

1. Publication Decision

The editor has the authority to select and decide which articles to visit. Decisions are based on the level of article contributions and recommendations from reviewers. The editor operates in accordance with the policies of the journal manager, complies with applicable legal provisions such as defamation, violation of rights, and plagiarism.

2. Objective Assessment

The editor evaluates a manuscript based on its intellectual content without discrimination in religion, ethnicity, ethnicity, gender, nation, and others.

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff may not disclose any information about accepted manuscripts to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, and the editorial board.

4. Conflict of Interest

Article material that has been submitted to the Journal of Health and has not been found may not be used for the editor's personal research without the permission of the author. Information or ideas obtained through blind review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors must refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has an interest in the manuscript, due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution with which it relates.

5. Cooperation in Investigation

Editors must take responsive action if there are ethical complaints about manuscripts that have been received or articles that have been received. The editor can contact the manuscript writer and give consideration to the complaint. Editors can also carry out further communication with related research institutions or institutions. When the complaint has been resolved, things like top publication, withdrawal, praise, or other notes, need to be considered.

 

REVIEWER CODE OF FOR CONDUCT

1. Contribute to Editor's Decision

Blind peer review by reviewers assists editors in making decisions to reject or accept writings and can help authors improve their writings through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component of formal scientific communication and scientific approaches.

2. Punctuality

If an assigned reviewer feels unqualified to review a manuscript or finds that it is not possible to conduct a proper review, the assigned reviewer should immediately contact the editor.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscript that has been accepted for review must be treated as a confidential document. The manuscript may not be shown to or discussed with others unless it has been authorized by the editor.

4. Objective

The review must be carried out objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. The reviewer must clearly state his views with supporting arguments.

5. Completeness and Authenticity of References

Reviewers must identify published works that have not been cited by the authors. A statement about previous observations must be accompanied by relevant citations. The reviewer must point out to the editor any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and the evidence attested, according to the reviewer.

6. Conflict of Interest

Article material that has not been used in the reviewer's personal research without written permission from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer must refuse to review the manuscript if the reviewer has a competitive interest, due to a relationship, collaborative, or other relationship with the author, company, or institution associated with the work.

 

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR AUTHOR

1. Standard Writing

The author must present an accurate paper/article on the research conducted and present an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Research data must be presented accurately in the article. An article must be sufficiently detailed with sufficient references to allow others to replicate it on top of the work. Fraud or inaccurate presentation of papers is unethical and unacceptable behavior.

2. Research Data Access

Authors may be asked to provide data on articles to be reviewed and must be able to provide public access to such data where possible, and must be able to retain such data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical behavior