Principal and Practice of Publication Ethics

The International Journal of Occupational Safety and Health (IJOSH) adheres to the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher) to maintain research integrity.

We firmly uphold the following standards (code of conduct) for all IJOSH stakeholders in order to implement the fundamentals of research integrity.

1. Role of Authors
2. Role of Reviewers
3. Role of Editor
4. Plagiarism and possible misconduct

Role of Authors

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

Authorship credit should be based on:

• Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
• Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published; and
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Conflicts of Interest: To ensure the readers' rights and provide clear and unbiased scientific results to the public, manuscripts should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of the nature and level of their contribution to the article, their understanding of the obligation to share data and materials, and any affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias.

Ethical considerations: The article reporting experiments on human subjects should disclose whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in 2013.

Subject / Patient consent: Studies on patients or volunteers require institutional or regional ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the submitted manuscript.

Animal experiment: The authors should indicate when reporting animal experiments whether the institutions adhered to any national laws or guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. 

Manuscripts will not be accepted if an ethical approval letter is not submitted.

Do not use patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, especially in illustrative material.

Reporting standards: An accurate account of the implemented work and results should be presented, along with an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publications: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. 

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party (via Letter to the Editor) that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper. 

Communication with the readers: It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to communicate with the readers if they have questions related to the published manuscripts. 

Role of Reviewers

IJOSH follows a double-blind peer-reviewed model for an article to publish in this journal.

Punctuality: The reviewers who feel unable to review the research or know that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor. Do not agree to review a manuscript just to read it, with no plans to actually submit a review.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments with the appropriate references and evidence.

Disclosure: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research in any condition. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Conflict of interest: Declare all potential conflicts of interest, which may include those involving one's personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious beliefs. If you have any questions about potential conflicts of interest, do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Undue influence: Reviewers should avoid letting their comments be influenced by a manuscript's geographical origin, nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other traits of the authors.

Notification of suspected irregularities: Reviewers should notify the journal if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of any substantial similarities between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript.

Peer reviewers are requested to go through the ICMJE and COPE guidelines for peer reviewers.

Peer reviewers are requested to submit their feedback based on the IJOSH peer review format below:

1. Originality,

2. Scientific rigor (Clearly Described, up-to-date and relevant experimental procedures and study design),

3. Adequacy of data (Relevant, complete, well-defined data presentation),

4. Organization and readability (Clear and Concisely written paper,

5. Evidence-supported conclusion (Validity of the conclusion reached),

6. Adequacy of Literacy Review (Completeness of the literature cited),

7. Contribution to the existing knowledge (Contribution of significant new information or concept not already available in the literature), and

8. Overall Significance (Interest to the journal readership)

Role of Editorial Board

Decision Making: The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding and directing the strategies of the journal. S/he reviews and decides upon submitted manuscripts to ensure sustainable and timely copy flow. S/he is also ultimately the final decision maker for acceptance or rejection of the articles submitted to the journal, The managing editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board. The managing editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. The Editor-in-Chief also plays a pivotal role to bring together a range of experts within the field in order to make important decisions on journal strategies, select and ensure a smooth peer-reviewing process, achieve and uphold the quality of the journal, and ultimately oversee the journal is able to maintain and fulfill its scope and objectives.

Rationality: The editorial board should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Privacy: The editorial board should ensure not to disclose any information about the author or reviewer’s names or email addresses to each other.

Conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by any editor's own research in any condition.

Accountability to the publisher: Editors should choose which articles to publish based on their quality and suitability for the journal, independently from the publisher. The publisher ensures that everyone involved in the editorial process receives sufficient training and stays up to date on the most recent standards, advice, and research regarding peer review and journal management.

Handling complaints about the published articles: The original authors of the critiqued article are invited to submit a "response" to the journal within a deadline if it receives any valid criticism of the published article via "Letter to the Editor." Additionally, if accepted and published, both the critique and the response are subject to peer review, are revised, and are indexed by bibliographic databases. If the authors don't respond by the deadline, a note describing the lack of a response will be published with the critique. Further steps will be taken after seeking advice from the wider editorial board. IJOSH adheres to the steps outlined in the COPE flowchart for complaints.

Handling possible misconduct: Editors are ethically required to investigate allegations of misconduct when they are suspected of occurring with regard to both published and unpublished papers, using the COPE flowcharts as necessary. The Editors should first ask those who are suspected of misconduct for a response, and if they are not satisfied with that response, they should request an investigation from the relevant employers, institutions, or other suitable regulatory bodies. Editors must exert every conceivable effort to ensure that any allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated; if this is not the case, editors must exert every conceivable effort to persuade the issue to be resolved.

Any allegations of misconduct, whether they are made before or after publication, are taken seriously by IJOSH, and they call for an investigation to be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief. 

IJOSH Complaints and Misconduct Investigation Committee:

• Editor-in-Chief, IJOSH
• Managing Editor, IJOSH
• Adviser, Editorial Board, IJOSH
• One External Reviewer