Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The University of the Philippines Manila Information Publication and Public Affairs Office (UPM-IPPAO), as the publisher of PJHRD, is committed to adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing. It recognizes the need to ensure that the Code of Conduct and ethical practice in relation to the publication of articles submitted to the journal is strictly followed and adhered to.


  1. Article Assessment (Peer Review Policy)
  2. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
  3. Authorship Criteria and Acknowledgement
  4. Conflict of Interest
  5. Confidentiality
  6. Ethical Approval of Research
  7. Scientific Misconducts
  8. Correction and Retraction of Articles
  9. Responding to Breaches of our Publication Ethics
  10. Appeals, Complaints, and Disputes


1. ARTICLE ASSESSMENT (Peer Review Policy)

    All research papers published in PJHRD undergo thorough peer review to ensure that they meet the standards of scientific excellence. Independent peers review each manuscript.

Peer Review Policy

The following outlines the peer review process that every submitted manuscript will undergo once received by the journal office.

First, the Editorial Office checks the submission for completeness and decides if the manuscript is suitable to go through the normal peer review process. Once this is done, the Editorial Office gives a manuscript reference number and assigns a particular Subject Editor to handle and to make a preliminary assessment of the article in question. If the Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of sufficient quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal’s scope, the manuscript shall be rejected with no further processing. If the Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they should assign the manuscript to at least two external reviewers for peer-review. The peer-review process is double-blinded; that is, the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are, and the authors also do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. The reviewers will accomplish and submit the Reviewer’s Report Form along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the assigned Editor: publish with no alterations; consider after minor revisions; consider after major revisions; or reject: manuscript is flawed or not scientifically sound.

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

  • Publish without alterations (the manuscript is accepted for publication)
  • Consider after Minor Revisions (the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript addressing all the issues raised by the reviewers)
  • Consider after Major Revisions (the authors are notified to revise the manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to resubmit their revised manuscript within the allotted time)
  • Reject (if at least one of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate).

Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation addressed to the Editor-in-Chief who will make the final decision concerning the manuscript.

For any given year, the last volume will appropriate an acknowledgment page for all the reviewers who have performed in the peer-review process for one or more articles submitted during the year. Without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.


    PJHRD will consider only original manuscript on health research for publication.  No substantial part of the manuscript must be considered by any other journal. In case there is potential overlapping or duplication with previous work, authors must declare this and indicate how their submitted manuscript differs from their previous work. Reuse of authors’ own figures or substantial amounts of similar words may require permission from the copyright owner and the authors are responsible for securing this.

    The Editor reserves the right to evaluate duplicate submissions and redundant publications. Redundant publication, or the inappropriate division of study results into more than one article, may result either in advising the author to merge submitted manuscript or in total rejection of the manuscript. Duplicate publication of the same article may result in the retraction of the later article and the authors may incur sanctions.



3.1 Authorship should be solely based on scientific contribution to the work. Based on the  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, an author is one who has:

  • made substantial contribution from conception to design of research, or  gathering of data/experimentation,  analysis and interpretation of results.
  • been involved in drafting the manuscript or in the critical revision of the paper;
  • given final approval of the version of the manuscript for publication;
  • accepted accountability for all aspects of the work; stands by the accuracy or integrity of data presented.  

Author contributions must be declared in the cover letter using roles defined by CREDIT. In case of multiple authorship, the order should be based on the amount of contribution one has made in the conduct of the research and in the writing of the manuscript. The first author should be the person who has made the most contribution and the last author is usually the senior researcher/supervisor of the team. Securing research funding, collection of data, contribution of samples or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship. Submission by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered. A corresponding author must also be indicated.


     3.2 Acknowledgement

    All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgement section. These may include those who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or head of a department/section who provided only general support. Scientific writers or anyone who assisted in the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding.


      3.3 Changes in Authorship

    If any change to the list of authors is necessary after the initial submission of manuscript,  but before its publication, a written confirmation must be required from all authors and that they agree on such change. A change in authorship of a published article can only be amended via publication of a Correction Article. It is not the Editor’s responsibility to resolve authorship issues. Any individual who was requested by the corresponding author to be added or removed from the list of authors may be contacted by PJHRD. In general PJHRD follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)  guidelines on changes in authorship.



    PJHRD requires authors, editors, referees or evaluators to submit a conflict of interest declaration or statement in relation to their work. This is to ensure that the research is free from any form of bias. If there is no conflict of interest or if unsure, one should still issue an official statement that says he or she has no conflict of interest. 

    Conflict of interest (COIs, also known as “competing interests”) is a situation in which financial or other considerations have the potential to compromise or bias professional judgement and objectivity.

    A conflict of interest exists when the author’s interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by his personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations.  Authors should also disclose any non-financial conflict of interest, that may cause him embarrassment if this was to become public after the publication of the article. Distinction will have to made between a conflict of interest between authors and a conflict of interest between reviewers.  Editors (professional or academic, paid or unpaid) and reviewers must likewise declare their own conflict of interests and if necessary, inhibit themselves from involvement in the evaluation of a paper.

   When a conflict of interest is disclosed either by the author or editor, a footnote describing the disclosure will be included with the published article.  Articles will be evaluated fairly and will not necessarily be rejected when any competing interests are declared. 

     If the PJHRD Editorial Board becomes aware of any breaches concerning the conflicts of interests, the board will implement the following sanctions:

  • Rejection of the manuscript and any other subsequent manuscripts from the same authors(s);
  • Prohibition from serving as member of the Editorial Board, as Submission Editor or as Reviewer 

Additional sanctions may be applied for severe ethical violations.



     Editors will treat all manuscripts submitted to PJHRD in confidence. Reviewers are also required to treat manuscripts in confidentiality.




    6.1  Research on Human Subjects

    Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been   performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics review board/committee. If the research does not need an approval, there must be a document issued by a duly designated committee (e.g. Institutional Ethics Review Board) officially indicating such.

    Researches involving human subjects require signed informed consent to participate in the study and the investigator should obtain this from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16). A statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. The PJHRD will also require for a certification bearing the approval reference number to ensure that the study was approved by the Ethics Review Board

    In cases where pictures or images are part of the manuscript but where the subjects are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor


   6.2  Use of Animals in Research.

     Use of live animals in research or in vivo or testing must be reviewed and approved by a recognized IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) of an institution.  The investigators should abide by RA No. 8485-Animal Welfare Act 1998 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations  (DA Administrative Order No. 40 Series of 1998 and the Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals in the Philippines (2002).


   6.3  Use of  Biological and Hazardous Materials

     Researches involving the use of biological and hazardous materials including those that involved genetic modification and manipulation of microorganisms and of animal and  plant tissue cells must be reviewed and approved by the National Committee on   Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP) before implementation.


   6.4  Researches on Wildlife/Threatened Species

      Researches involving the use  life forms that are classified as “wildlife” or “threatened species” shall be required to show proof that an official permit has been issued to the investigators by duly authorized body to conduct this research in accordance to of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9147  Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act.”



      Research misconduct occurs when a researcher fabricates or falsifies data, or plagiarizes information or ideas within a research report. The misconduct must be committed intentionally, and the allegation must be proven by sufficient evidence. The definition of misconduct can also extend to breaches of confidentiality and authorship/publication violations.

    7.1 Plagiarism/Duplicate Publication

      Plagiarism is using another’s work (data, text, figures, or theories) as if they were his/her  own and without proper acknowledgment. PJHRD uses the plagiarism detection software Turnitin to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted manuscripts. Submitted manuscripts which are found to have been guilty of plagiarism in whatever forms will be rejected and the authors may incur sanctions. Any published articles may need to be corrected or retracted.


   7.2 Falsification/Fabrication of Data    

     Fabrication is making up data/results and recording or reporting them. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the  research record. Authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles that are found guilty of fabrication or falsification of data, including manipulation of images, may incur sanctions, and published articles may be retracted.



     Errors committed by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum whereas those by the publisher by an erratum. If such errors may significantly affect the conclusion of the study and tantamount to the commission of ethical misconduct, a retraction of the article will be imposed, following the COPE Retraction Guidelines.



     Suspicion regarding any breaches of our publication ethics or any alleged misconduct of authors, reviewers, or submission editors, either before and after publication, should be reported to designated Research Integrity Officer (RIO) through our secured on-line system or through the use of an anonymous email service such as ProtonMail, etc. The complaints, together with accompanying evidences, will be recorded and discussed by the Research Integrity Team (RIT). Complainants or whistleblowers will be kept anonymous at all cost, if requested. The RIT may decide on the merits/demerits of the complaint/report after completion of investigations and deliberations and all parties will be informed. Sanctions will be implemented based on the decisions made by the team. 



     PJHRD shall accommodate appeals, complaints or disputes regarding editorial decisions.  The Editorial Board shall be guided accordingly by guidelines as described by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in dealing with these issues.



PLOS Editorial and Publishing policies

Springer Verlag Policies on Misconduct