publication ethics and malpractice policy

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement (GPHHS – EcoScribe Publishers)

Global Public Health & Health Systems (GPHHS), published by EcoScribe Publishers, is committed to the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. GPHHS follows the principles and best-practice guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and expects all parties involved—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—to uphold ethical conduct throughout the submission, review, and publication process.

1) Peer Review Integrity (Double-Blind Model)

GPHHS operates a double-blind peer review system in which authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Editors may access author identities for legitimate editorial administration (e.g., scope checks, ethics verification, and conflict-of-interest screening). Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors, and authors should ensure their manuscripts are anonymised as required by the journal’s submission guidelines.

2) Duties of Authors

Authors submitting to GPHHS must ensure that:

  • Originality and attribution: Manuscripts are original, properly cited, and free from plagiarism, redundant publication, and inappropriate text recycling. Any overlap with a preprint, thesis/dissertation, conference abstract, or prior publication must be disclosed and correctly referenced.

  • Accuracy and transparency: Data, methods, analyses, and conclusions are reported honestly and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or selective reporting is unacceptable.

  • Ethics approval and consent: Research involving humans, human data, or identifiable information must include ethics approval details (committee name and reference number) and an informed consent statement where applicable, including confidentiality safeguards.

  • Authorship integrity: Authorship reflects real contributions. Gift/guest authorship and ghost authorship are prohibited. All authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to submission.

  • Conflicts of interest and funding: All financial and non-financial conflicts of interest and all sources of funding must be declared.

  • Data availability: Authors must include a Data Availability Statement and should be able to provide supporting documents (e.g., ethics approvals, anonymised datasets where permissible) on request, subject to legal/ethical constraints.

  • Use of AI/LLM tools: Any use of AI/LLM tools for writing support, analysis, or figure generation must be disclosed (tool + purpose). Authors remain fully responsible for the manuscript’s accuracy, originality, and proper citation.

3) Duties of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers for GPHHS are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality: Treat manuscripts and associated materials as confidential and not share or use them for personal advantage.

  • Review objectively: Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback, avoiding personal criticism or inappropriate language.

  • Identify integrity concerns: Alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, unethical research, image manipulation, data concerns, or major methodological flaws.

  • Declare conflicts of interest: Decline review when conflicts exist (financial, institutional, personal, or competitive).

  • Respect timelines: Submit reviews within the agreed timeframe or promptly request an extension/decline.

4) Duties of Editors

Editors of GPHHS will:

  • Make fair decisions: Evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal scope, and methodological quality, without discrimination based on nationality, institution, gender, religion, or political views.

  • Protect double-blind review: Uphold reviewer anonymity and manage the double-blind process carefully. Editors will not reveal reviewer identities and will ensure manuscript files used for review are anonymised where required.

  • Manage conflicts of interest: Recuse themselves when a conflict exists and assign an alternate editor where necessary.

  • Uphold research integrity: Investigate allegations of misconduct, follow COPE guidance, and take appropriate actions (rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions).

  • Ensure transparency: Communicate decisions clearly and keep appropriate records of editorial actions.

5) Publisher Responsibilities (EcoScribe Publishers)

EcoScribe Publishers is responsible for:

  • Maintaining a transparent editorial and publication workflow and supporting the editorial team.

  • Supporting ethical investigations and implementing outcomes (corrections/retractions) where required.

  • Ensuring the journal website accurately reflects core policies (peer review, APCs, licensing, archiving, and ethics).

  • Protecting the integrity of the published record and the reputation of the journal.

6) Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Misconduct

GPHHS screens submissions for similarity and investigates concerns at submission, during peer review, and after publication. Confirmed misconduct may result in:

  • Desk rejection or withdrawal of acceptance

  • Publication of a Correction, Expression of Concern, or Retraction

  • Notification to authors’ institutions/funders where appropriate
    Where misconduct is confirmed, APCs are not refunded in line with the journal’s APC Refund & Withdrawal Policy.

7) Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit:

  • Appeals against editorial decisions, supported by clear scientific justification and a point-by-point response to editorial/reviewer concerns.

  • Complaints about editorial process or publication ethics to the editorial office. Complaints are handled confidentially and may be escalated to the publisher’s ethics review process where appropriate.

8) Post-Publication Updates

If errors or integrity concerns are identified after publication, GPHHS may:

  • Publish a Correction for honest errors that do not invalidate the main conclusions.

  • Publish an Expression of Concern while serious concerns are investigated.

  • Issue a Retraction when findings are unreliable or misconduct is confirmed.