Ethical Guidelines

 Table of Content

 Policy on Research Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals
 Complaints and Appeals Policy
 Data Sharing & Transparency Policy

 Policy on Research Misconduct, Complaints, and Appeals

PCSP follows the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling all allegations of misconduct and disputes.

Allegations of Misconduct: We take all reports of research and publication misconduct seriously. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Plagiarism: Use of others' ideas or words without proper credit.
  • Data Falsification/Fabrication: Manipulating or creating false research data.
  • Redundant Publication: Submitting work that has been published elsewhere (Salami slicing).
  • Unethical Research: Failure to obtain proper ethical clearance or informed consent.

Investigation Process: If misconduct is suspected, the Editorial Board will conduct an internal investigation following COPE flowcharts. This may involve contacting the authors' institutions or funding bodies.

Complaints and Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal an editorial decision if they believe there has been a factual error or a biased evaluation. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed justification. The Editorial Board will review the appeal, and its decision will be final.

Post-Publication Corrections: PCSP is committed to maintaining the accuracy of the scientific record. If errors are discovered after publication, we will issue:

  • Errata/Author Corrections: For errors made by the authors.
  • Corrigenda/Publisher Corrections: For errors made during the production process.
  • Retractions: For cases of major scientific flaws or proven misconduct that invalidate the study’s findings, PCSP follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines. A formal "Retraction Note" will be published and linked to the original article.

 Back to Table of Content

 

 Complaints and Appeals Policy

Primary Care Science and Practice (PCSP) is committed to a fair and transparent editorial process. We recognize that authors may occasionally wish to appeal an editorial decision or lodge a complaint regarding the journal's services or the conduct of the editorial staff.

1. Appeals Against Editorial Decisions

Authors have the right to appeal a rejection if they believe that the decision was based on a factual error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or evidence of bias.

  • How to Appeal: Authors must submit a formal letter of appeal to the Editor-in-Chief via the official journal email within 14 days of the decision.
  • Requirements: The appeal must provide a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewers' or editors' comments. Appeals based on personal opinions or general disagreements without scientific justification will not be considered.
  • The Process: The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal. If necessary, the manuscript may be sent to an independent "Adjudicating Reviewer." The final decision made after the appeal process is definitive and cannot be appealed further.

2. Complaints Regarding the Editorial Process

Complaints may relate to any aspect of the journal's management, including delays in the peer-review process, the conduct of editors or reviewers, or alleged breaches of publication ethics.

  • Procedure: Complaints should be sent in writing to the Managing Editor or the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Investigation: PCSP takes all complaints seriously. We will acknowledge the receipt of a complaint within 7 working days and conduct a thorough investigation following the COPE flowcharts.
  • Resolution: After the investigation, the journal will provide a formal response to the complainant, outlining the findings and any corrective actions taken.

3. Ethics and Professionalism

All communications regarding appeals and complaints must be conducted in a professional and respectful manner. PCSP reserves the right to terminate the appeal process if the communication becomes abusive or harassing.

 Back to Table of Content

 

 Data Sharing & Transparency Policy

To promote scientific transparency and reproducibility, PCSP requires all authors to include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscripts.

1. Data Deposit Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit their de-identified research data in a recognized public repository (e.g., Mendeley Data, Zenodo, Figshare) and provide the DOI or stable link within the manuscript.

2. Data Availability Statement Authors must choose one of the following scenarios to be included in the manuscript:

"The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [Repository Name] at [DOI/URL]."

"The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

"The data are not publicly available due to [e.g., ethical or legal restrictions related to patient privacy]."

3. Ethical Considerations For primary care research involving human subjects, authors must ensure that data sharing complies with informed consent and patient confidentiality standards (e.g., HIPAA, GDPR, or local institutional ethics committee requirements).

 Back to Table of Content