Merit Based Decisions
Acceptance and rejection decisions are based on methodological quality, relevance, and evidence strength, not author status.
Editorial Policies
Editorial Policy Framework for JPCS
JPCS editorial policies are designed to protect scientific integrity, ensure fair review decisions, and maintain trust in published patient care research. Our policy framework covers manuscript assessment standards, ethics requirements, conflict management, review governance, correction pathways, and decision consistency. Every editorial decision is expected to be evidence based, transparent, and independent from financial or institutional influence.
45%APC Savings
Global -Research Community
24/7Open Access
Core Editorial Principles
These principles guide all review and publication actions across article categories and editorial teams.
Ethics First Review
Ethics approval, consent process clarity, and participant protection are mandatory in all eligible human subject studies.
Conflict Management
Editors and reviewers must declare conflicts and recuse themselves where impartiality may be compromised.
Transparent Communication
Decision letters should explain key reasons clearly and provide actionable guidance for authors when revision is invited.
Peer Review Governance
Manuscripts are assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in patient care delivery, service operations, quality outcomes, or policy analysis depending on topic. Review quality is monitored for relevance, clarity, and professional conduct. Editors may seek additional review when feedback quality is insufficient or when methodological disagreements require deeper validation.
Review confidentiality is respected, and reviewer identity handling follows journal policy and platform controls. Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments with evidence based revisions and clear response documentation.
Publication Integrity Controls
- Plagiarism and overlap checks are completed before acceptance.
- Questionable data patterns may trigger verification requests.
- Image and figure integrity concerns are escalated for review.
- Undisclosed conflicts may lead to editorial action post publication.
- Corrections and retractions follow documented policy pathways.
Editorial integrity is a continuous process that extends beyond publication date when concerns are raised with evidence.
Author and Reviewer Conduct Expectations
Professional conduct is required throughout submission, review, revision, and post publication correspondence.
Authentic Reporting
Authors must present complete, accurate, and non misleading representations of methods and outcomes.
Respectful Review
Review feedback should be constructive, specific, and free from personal or discriminatory language.
Timely Communication
Authors and reviewers should respond within agreed timelines to preserve editorial workflow quality.
Post Publication Responsibility
Substantive errors identified after publication must be reported promptly for editorial assessment.
Policy Enforcement and Corrective Actions
Editorial policy has operational value only when enforcement is timely, consistent, and evidence based.
Pre Publication Actions
If material concerns arise during review, editors may request additional data clarification, ethics verification, raw figure files, or revised conflict disclosures. Manuscripts can be paused until concerns are resolved. Where evidence remains insufficient, rejection may be required to protect publication integrity.
Escalation decisions should be documented concisely so editorial reasoning remains auditable and fair across comparable cases.
Post Publication Actions
When credible concerns are raised after publication, the journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions depending on evidence strength and impact on findings reliability. Authors are expected to cooperate with investigations and provide requested documentation promptly.
Transparent corrective communication is essential for maintaining trust with clinical readers who rely on patient care evidence for decision support.
Consistency Audits and Governance Quality
Editorial quality is reviewed through periodic consistency checks across decision letters, reviewer utilization, conflict handling, and correction outcomes. These audits help identify drift, reduce variability between handling editors, and reinforce fair standards for all authors.
Audit Focus Areas
Scope triage consistency, revision clarity, ethics escalation behavior, and timeliness are evaluated against defined policy expectations.
Continuous Improvement
Where variation appears, targeted guidance and template updates are issued to strengthen editorial reliability without slowing workflow.
Policy consistency: comparable evidence patterns should receive comparable editorial treatment across manuscripts, regardless of author seniority or institutional profile.
Operational Compliance Note
For policy related pages, JPCS recommends documenting decisions and responsibilities in a traceable way. Clear ownership, version control, and documented communication improve legal and editorial reliability. Where uncertainty exists, contact the editorial office before submission rather than resolving compliance questions late in production. Early clarification protects timeline, reduces correction risk, and improves trust for institutions that rely on documented policy alignment.
Questions About Editorial Policy?
Contact the JPCS editorial office for policy clarification before submission to avoid preventable decision delays.
