Publication Ethics Statement

Introduction

Heighpubs Otolaryngology and Rhinology (HOR) is dedicated to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and credibility of the scholarly record. Our publication ethics policy is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct, ICMJE Recommendations, WAME Principles, and DOAJ best practices. This statement outlines ethical responsibilities for authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers.

Ethical Principles for Authors

  • Originality: Submit only original and unpublished work.
  • Proper Citation: Cite sources fully and accurately.
  • Transparency: Disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources.
  • Research Integrity: Avoid data fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation.
  • Ethics Approval: Provide evidence of IRB or ethical committee approval for human/animal research.
  • Consent: Obtain informed consent for patient participation and case reports.

Ethical Principles for Editors

  • Make unbiased editorial decisions regardless of authors’ background.
  • Preserve manuscript confidentiality.
  • Recuse from decisions where conflicts of interest exist.
  • Ensure timely communication with authors and reviewers.
  • Take action against misconduct according to COPE flowcharts.

Ethical Principles for Reviewers

  • Provide constructive, fair, and evidence-based feedback.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeline.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, or unethical practices.
  • Declare conflicts of interest before accepting assignments.

Publisher Responsibilities

Heighpubs supports editorial independence, maintains technical infrastructure, and ensures compliance with ethical standards. The publisher also responds promptly to allegations of misconduct and facilitates corrections, retractions, and updates to the scholarly record.

Misconduct and Malpractice

HOR considers the following as unethical practices:

  • Plagiarism and self-plagiarism
  • Data fabrication and falsification
  • Duplicate submission and redundant publication
  • Improper authorship practices (ghost, guest, gift authorship)
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Handling Misconduct

Allegations of misconduct are investigated according to COPE flowcharts. Depending on severity, outcomes include:

  • Request for corrections
  • Manuscript rejection or withdrawal
  • Article retraction with notice
  • Notification of authors’ institutions or funders
  • Bans on future submissions

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

HOR follows transparent processes:

  • Corrections: Minor errors fixed with linked notices.
  • Retractions: For fraudulent or invalid findings, articles remain online with clear retraction notices.
  • Expressions of Concern: Used when investigations are ongoing.

Plagiarism Prevention

All submissions are screened with plagiarism detection software. Similarity beyond acceptable limits (>20% excluding references) is not tolerated.

Example: If duplicate publication is discovered after acceptance, the article will be retracted and flagged, with notice to the author’s institution.

Transparency and Accountability

HOR requires full transparency in data reporting, funding acknowledgments, and conflict of interest declarations. Accountability ensures the published record is trustworthy and reusable for future research.

FAQs

What if authors unintentionally submit overlapping work?

Editors may request revisions rather than retraction if overlap is minor and unintentional.

Do reviewers remain anonymous?

Yes, under HOR’s double-blind review policy, unless reviewers choose to disclose their identity.

Can ethical breaches be reported by readers?

Yes, readers are encouraged to report concerns directly to the editorial office.

How does HOR handle authorship disputes?

Authorship disputes are resolved in line with COPE recommendations and may involve institutions.

Contact Information