The Journal of Community Medicine and Health Sciences (JCMHS) recognizes that editors play a crucial role in safeguarding the credibility of scholarly communication. This Ethics for Editors statement defines the moral, professional, and procedural expectations that guide all editorial actions. The principles reflect the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, ICMJE Recommendations, and DOAJ transparency guidelines.

Editors are the custodians of scientific integrity — their ethical conduct determines the credibility of the entire publication process.

1. Editorial Integrity and Independence

Editors must uphold independence from commercial, institutional, or political interests. Their decisions should be based solely on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope. No external influence should compromise editorial judgment.

2. Objectivity and Fair Judgment

Editors should evaluate submissions without prejudice toward nationality, religion, gender, ethnicity, or institutional affiliation. Every manuscript deserves fair, objective, and unbiased evaluation grounded in scientific validity and ethical compliance.

3. Confidentiality Obligations

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts and related communications as confidential. No information about a manuscript under consideration may be shared beyond those directly involved in the peer-review and editorial process.

4. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Editors are obligated to declare any conflicts that could bias editorial decisions. Conflicts may arise from personal relationships, financial interests, or professional rivalries. If a conflict exists, the editor must recuse themselves and delegate the review process to an independent colleague.

5. Impartial Reviewer Selection

Editors must assign reviewers purely on scholarly expertise, ensuring the selection of competent, unbiased, and timely evaluators. They must avoid selecting reviewers with potential conflicts, affiliations, or collaborative history with the author.

6. Transparent Decision-Making

All editorial decisions must be transparent, well-reasoned, and documented in the manuscript history. Authors must receive clear feedback explaining acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions to ensure transparency and fairness.

7. Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Handling

Editors are responsible for identifying and addressing suspected ethical violations, including plagiarism, data falsification, redundant publication, or unethical research conduct. The editorial team follows COPE’s flowcharts to investigate concerns systematically and confidentially.

8. Respect for Authors and Reviewers

Editors must maintain courteous communication with authors and reviewers at all times. Constructive criticism should focus on scholarly quality and improvement rather than personal judgment or tone.

9. Data Protection and GDPR Compliance

Editors must handle all author and reviewer data according to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and journal privacy policies. Personal data may be used solely for editorial purposes and never shared with third parties without consent.

10. Ethical Review of Sensitive Research

Manuscripts involving vulnerable populations, sensitive public-health data, or controversial findings require heightened ethical scrutiny. Editors must ensure that ethical approvals and informed consents are adequately documented and that sensitive content is handled responsibly.

11. Prevention of Plagiarism and Duplicate Submission

Editors must ensure all manuscripts are screened through plagiarism-detection software (e.g., iThenticate). If overlap is detected, the editor must assess the extent, consult COPE guidelines, and decide on corrective or disciplinary measures.

12. Accountability in Publishing Decisions

Editors must take full accountability for the quality and integrity of published articles. The editorial board collectively shares responsibility for maintaining scholarly standards and addressing post-publication issues, including corrections or retractions.

13. Handling Appeals and Complaints

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Editors must ensure that appeals are handled objectively, ideally by a senior editor not involved in the original review. Complaints regarding editorial behavior are investigated confidentially by the Editor-in-Chief.

14. Ethical Treatment of Peer Reviewers

Editors should acknowledge the contribution of peer reviewers, respect their confidentiality, and avoid exploiting reviewer comments for personal or institutional benefit. The journal may publish an annual list of reviewers to recognize their voluntary service (with consent).

15. Managing Sponsored or Special Issues

For special or sponsored issues, editors must ensure that editorial independence is fully preserved. All content must undergo the same peer-review and ethical scrutiny as regular submissions, regardless of financial or institutional sponsorship.

16. Correction and Retraction Protocols

When substantial errors, misconduct, or integrity concerns arise post-publication, editors must act promptly to correct the record. The process may include issuing errata, corrigenda, or retractions following COPE Retraction Guidelines.

17. Authorship Disputes

In authorship disputes, editors should seek written clarification from all co-authors and, if necessary, involve the affiliated institutions. No editorial decision should be finalized until the dispute is resolved transparently and ethically.

18. Continuous Professional Development

Editors are encouraged to pursue continuous training on scholarly ethics, research integrity, and open-access publishing. Participation in COPE, WAME, or ICMJE workshops strengthens editorial decision-making and ethical sensitivity.

19. Cultural Sensitivity and Inclusivity

Editors must ensure that published content respects cultural differences and does not propagate discriminatory language, images, or interpretations. Manuscripts containing sensitive cultural or social references must be handled with contextual awareness.

20. Transparency in Corrections and Updates

Editors should ensure that any post-publication updates, data clarifications, or author name changes are processed transparently and linked to the original article DOI. Corrections must not obscure the publication’s history.

21. Relationship with the Publisher

Editors maintain an independent but collaborative relationship with the publisher. While the publisher provides administrative and technical support, editorial content decisions remain entirely under the control of the editorial board.

22. Handling Conflicts Between Editors

If ethical disagreements arise among editors, such conflicts must be addressed through documented discussion under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief or an external advisory panel. All resolutions must be guided by COPE principles.

23. Promoting Transparency and Open Science

Editors should promote open-science practices, encouraging authors to share data, methodologies, and code whenever possible. The goal is to foster reproducibility and public trust in scientific research.

24. Editorial Accountability and Public Trust

Editors must understand that their decisions have far-reaching implications. Upholding ethical standards enhances public trust, strengthens journal reputation, and supports equitable global access to medical knowledge.

25. Contact for Ethical Clarifications

Editors or stakeholders seeking guidance on ethical issues may contact:

Email: [email protected]
Subject: “Editorial Ethics Query – [Manuscript ID]”
Response time: within 5 business days

“The measure of a great editor is not just sound judgment, but unwavering ethics in every decision.”