Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
Editorial board
The editorial board of Qualitative Health Communication (QHC) are all recognized experts in qualitative health communication research. Full names and affiliations are listed at the website: https://tidsskrift.dk/qhc/about/editorialTeam.
Editors must maintain and promote consistent ethical policies for QHC and oversee and act to enforce those policies as needed in a fair and consistent manner. Editors should evaluate manuscripts on the recommendations of the reviewers and on the basis of their academic soundness. Editors should ensure the confidentiality of the review process and exercise the highest standards of personal integrity in their work as editor of QHC.
When members of the Editorial Board submit articles to the journal, they do not participate in the peer-review process or in the acceptance of the article, and they do not have access to any information regarding its review. The responsibility for overseeing the review process is completely delegated to the handling editor of the journal
Authors
Authors are responsible that their work is original, that it has not previously been published and that it is not under consideration with another journal. Where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing) the source must be clearly cited and appropriate permission must be obtained if necessary. Authors must also ensure that their work does not infringe on any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights. Due to the nature of most qualitative health communication data, authors are not required to share or deposit their data; however, authors must ensure that the data used are true and not manipulated and it must be the author’s own data or the author must have permission to use data reproduced in their paper. Conflicting or competing interests must be clearly stated on submission of the article (including funding assistance) in the Comments for the Editor.
The corresponding author must ensure that authorship of the paper is accurately represented, including ensuring that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication.
Authors listed on an article must meet all the following criteria:
- Made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.
- Have drafted or written, or substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.
- Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.
- Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
- Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share the responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.
All studies submitted for publication must comply with the following ethical guidelines regarding the involvement of human participants in research:
- All research involving human subjects need to adhere to relevant local, national, and international regulations and guidelines regarding ethical research practices.
- Researchers must take all necessary measures to protect participants.
- Any suspected violations of these ethical standards should be reported to the journal's editor-in-chief for investigation.
For author complaints and appeals, the editor-in-chief can be contacted on qhc-journal@au.dk.
Peer reviewers
Peer reviewers must conduct themselves fairly and impartially and treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not use them for their own research or personal or professional advantage. Reviewers must immediately alert their journal editor of any real or potential competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate.
Reviewers are asked to provide precise and constructive feedback and they are expected to write their reviews in a friendly tone. Peer reviewers are asked to provide an account of strengths and weaknesses, and, where relevant, suggestions for improvements in relation to relevance and clarity of purpose as well as rigor of theory, methods (including ethics), and analysis, along with presentation of findings and relevance. Peer reviewers also evaluate writing quality, referencing, and other relevant aspects.
Post-publication discussions and corrections
If errors are identified in published articles, the editors will consider what action is required. Errors of the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors of the journal by an erratum. If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. Readers may comment on published manuscripts through the submission of a letter to the editor.
