Believers Journal of Health Sciences (BJHS) is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record. This policy explains how the journal identifies, assesses, and addresses allegations of research misconduct before and after publication. The journal treats all concerns with absolute seriousness and handles them fairly, confidentially, and in strict accordance with recognized international principles of publication ethics.
Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following prohibited practices:
Reports can be submitted via the journal's official channels and must include sufficient info to facilitate an initial desk assessment:
The Editor-in-Chief executes a confidential review of the submitted evidence. Lapses involving honest error or poor reporting may be resolved via editorial corrections. If an evaluation points to potential misconduct, the corresponding author (or the full group if data integrity is affected) is notified and given an opportunity to provide original raw datasets, laboratory records, or ethics documentation within a defined period.
If serious integrity concerns are flagged during peer review, BJHS reserves the authority to suspend evaluation loops immediately. Actions include returning the file for correction, issuing an outright manuscript rejection without completing peer review, banning the author group from routing future submissions for a specified timeline, and filing formal notifications with the home university or ethics board.
To safeguard the permanent literature archive, post-publication notices are executed across four clear operational pathways:
BJHS handles all allegations discreetly, protecting complainant identities unless law or a fair investigation dictates disclosure. While the journal cooperates with university employers, funders, and regulatory boards during misconduct reviews, it does not replace their administrative role. Interim steps like Expressions of Concern may be maintained while institutional reviews are active.
Authors retain the right to lodge a written appeal detailing significant procedural flaws or unconsidered facts. Appeals are redirected to a neutral editorial board authority not involved in the baseline decision loop for final adjudication.