Editorial Policies | Plagiarism | Peer Review | Policy for handling errata, retractions, withdrawals, and expressions of concern | Conflicts of Interest | Journal policy on In-House Submissions | Permissions To Reproduce Previously Published Material | Patient Consent Forms | Policy on Artificial Intelligence Used Manuscripts | Ethics committee approval
Calabar Journal of Health Sciences rely on the integrity and honesty of their Editors to publish the best manuscript that conforms to the ethical standards and meets all the requirements as per the mission of the journal for publication. Calabar Journal of Health Sciences encourages its editors to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) "Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors".
Calabar Journal of Health Sciences adhere to the professional and industry guidelines and best practices in scientific publications, including the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (ICMJE) and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA)
"To steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own," "use another's production without crediting the source," or "present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source." The Calabar Journal of Health Sciences also considers "self-plagiarism" as a form of plagiarism. An example of self-plagiarism would be when an author borrows from his or her own previously published work without the proper citation within the newly submitted manuscript. We have plagiarism check software (iThenticate) available on our Editors and Reviewer’s panel in the manuscript management system. We encourage our editors and reviewers to use the plagiarism check. The manuscript’s found to have plagiarism is rejected.
Calabar Journal of Health Sciences rely on the double-blind peer review process to assess the quality of the manuscript to be published. Calabar Journal of Health Sciences follows a double-blind review process, in which the author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on the peer review process can be found here and Guidelines for the reviewers can be found here.
Policy for handling errata, retractions, withdrawals, and expressions of concern
Calabar Journal of Health Sciences abide by COPE Retraction Guidelines.
It is important to establish clear ethical guidelines to ensure that all content is produced and distributed in a responsible and ethical manner.
- Accuracy and fact-checking: We strive to publish accurate and truthful content, and we take all necessary steps to fact-check information before publication. We correct any errors promptly and transparently.
- Editorial independence: We maintain editorial independence and do not allow advertisers, sponsors, or any external parties to influence our content in any way.
- Transparency: We disclose any conflicts of interest and relationships with external parties that may influence our content, and we provide clear attribution for sources and contributors.
- Respect for diversity and inclusivity: We respect and celebrate diversity in all its forms, and we strive to represent diverse perspectives and voices in our content.
- Protection of personal information: We respect individuals’ right to privacy and we protect personal information in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
- Copyright and intellectual property: We respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not infringe on any copyrights or trademarks in our content.
- Non-discrimination: We do not publish content that discriminates against any individual or group based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other protected characteristic.
- Responsibility for content: We take responsibility for all content published under our name, and we promptly address any complaints or concerns related to our content.
These guidelines are intended to provide a framework for ethical behaviour and decision-making. We expect all contributors, and partners to adhere to these guidelines and uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct.
Errata: An erratum is a correction of a factual error that does not alter the overall conclusions of a published work. When an error is identified, we will promptly correct the error and publish an erratum that clearly identifies the correction and its implications, such changes are intimated to respective indexing agencies and DOI records are updated.
Retractions: A retraction is a notice that a published work is no longer valid or reliable. Retractions may be necessary when a work contains serious errors, plagiarism, or other forms of misconduct. The publisher and the editorial team of the journal will investigate any concerns raised about published content and, if necessary, issue a retraction that clearly explains the reasons for the retraction, such changes are intimated to respective indexing agencies and DOI records are updated.
Process for issuing a retraction statement
Where the decision is taken to retract and the article to be retracted is the Version of Record (i.e. it has been published as Online First or within an issue of a journal), Scientific Scholar recommends issuing a retraction statement which should be published separately and should be linked to the article being retracted. A "retracted" watermark should also be added to the article; however, the article as first published should be retained online to maintain the scientific record. Issuing a retraction statement will mean the following:
- The retraction will appear on a numbered page in a prominent section of the journal.
- The retraction will be listed in the contents page and the title of the original article will be included in its heading.
- The text of the retraction should explain why the article is being retracted; and
- The statement of retraction and the original article must be clearly linked in the electronic database so that the retraction will always be apparent to anyone who comes across the original article.
Withdrawals: A withdrawal is a notice that a published work is being removed from circulation because of ethical concerns or legal issues. Withdrawals may be necessary when a work contains fraudulent or unethical research or when legal issues arise. We will investigate any concerns raised about published content and, if necessary, issue a withdrawal that clearly explains the reasons for the withdrawal.
Any manuscript before or post acceptance can be withdrawn with a clear reason and the editorial team of the respective journals take appropriate action. Scientific Scholar as a publisher do not interfere in any decision making during these process. The DOI (Digital Object Identifier) is assigned only at the time of online publication.
Expressions of Concern: An expression of concern is a notice that a published work is being reviewed for potential problems, but no decision has been made about whether to retract or correct the work. Expressions of concern may be necessary when there are concerns about the validity or reliability of a published work. The publisher and the editorial team will investigate any concerns raised about published content and, if necessary, issue an expression of concern that clearly explains the reasons for the concern and the steps being taken to address the issue.
These policies are intended to provide a framework for addressing issues that may arise with published content. We will follow these policies with care and transparency, and communicate clearly with all stakeholders throughout the process.
To challenge to a retraction or a related issue, Calabar Journal of Health Sciences procedure is as follows:
- The complaint may be submitted via the journal editor or directly to Scientific Scholar at email@example.com
- The investigation involves reviewing all correspondence relating to the case in question and, if necessary, obtaining further written responses to queries from the parties involved.
- The purpose of the investigation is to establish that correct procedures have been followed, that decisions have been reached based on academic criteria, that personal prejudice or bias of some kind has not influenced the outcome, and that appropriate sanctions have been applied where relevant.
- Complainants may choose to take their complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Conflicts of Interest
The Calabar Journal of Health Sciences requires the authors to sign a disclosure form at the time of manuscript submission. Author/authors are expected to disclose any conflicts or financial interests impacting the outcome of the study in which he/she or they are involved. If the manuscript is accepted, the Conflict of Interest information will be communicated in a published statement. COPE guidelines on conflict of interest can be found here.
Journal policy on In-House Submissions
In-house submissions that contain the work of any editorial board member, are not allowed to be reviewed by that editorial board member and all decisions regarding this manuscript are made by an independent editor. In addition, these manuscripts are reviewed by the two external reviewers.
Permissions To Reproduce Previously Published Material
Permission is required to reproduce material (such as illustrations) from the copyright holder. Articles cannot be published without these permissions.
Patient Consent Forms
Potential participants should make their own decision about whether they want to participate or continue participating in research. This should be done through a process of informed consent in which individuals (1) are accurately informed of the purpose, methods, risks, benefits, and alternatives to the research, (2) understand this information and how it relates to their own clinical situation or interests, and (3) make a voluntary decision about whether to participate. A statement to the effect that such consent had been obtained must be included in the 'Methods' section of your manuscript. If necessary the Editors may request a copy of consent forms.
Policy on Artificial Intelligence Used Manuscripts
The Calabar Journal of Health Sciences adheres to the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations on artificial intelligence (AI) used in scientific publications.
- Artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT or Large Language Model (LLM) based bots cannot be listed as a credited author of a paper published, only humans can perform tasks and take responsibility for the authorship of a scientific paper.
- If AI is used in any element of the research process including data collection, writing or editing of the text, preparation of tables or production of images or graphical elements, authors should disclose the use of AI in authoring the manuscript.
- Please note that authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work (including the accuracy of what is presented, and the absence of plagiarism), regardless of AI use.
Ethics committee approval
All studies that involve the humans need to have approval for the study from the respective institutional review Board (IRB) for the human studies. These guidelines may vary from country to country and country specific guidelines need to be followed. The IRB number and protocol number should be stated in the manuscript.
If World Medical Association (WMA) the Declaration of Helsinki ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects were followed, they should be stated in the method section of the manuscript. (See here for more information.)
If the study involves a Drug under investigation such as in clinical trial, its approval by the FDA or equivalent authority be obtained and stated in the manuscript. (See here for more information.)
Any study involving the animals for research should have approval of the protocol from the Institutional committee on the animal resources.
We follow the latest Core Practice Guidelines for Editors and Journal publishers as outlined by the COPE.
Allegations of misconduct
Authorship and contributorship
Complaints and appeals
Conflicts of interest / Competing interests
Data and reproducibility
Peer review processes
Post-publication discussions and corrections