Information for authors

Transparency and publishing ethics


JHPOR is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles. Conformance to standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. In particular, Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.


These guidelines have been developed with all of these requirements in mind, but in particular with the recognition that an important role of the publisher is to support the enormous efforts of the journal editors and the often underestimated voluntary work undertaken by the reviewers to maintain a high substantive quality.

The publisher has a supporting, investing and educative role in the scientific communication process, but is also ultimately responsible for adhering to the best practices in its publications. He is also meant to be the bond between all roles in the publishing process. He is responsible for logistics and organizational issues, HR and financial matters as well as legal aspects. Indeed, he also creates the brand of the journal.

The PRO MEDICINA Foundation adopts the ethical policies and procedures to support the editors, the reviewers and the authors in carrying out their ethical responsibilities under these guidelines. We work with the JHPOR Editorial Staff to establish the best practice standards for ethics, errors, and withdrawal of claims. We make every effort to ensure that the potential of advertising, reprinting or other commercial revenues does not influence the editorial decisions.

If necessary, we are prepared to provide expert legal review and advice.


The editor of a research journal has sole and independent responsibility for determining which articles submitted to the journal should be published, often in collaboration with the appropriate community. The approval of the work and its relevance to the researchers and readers must always guarantee such decisions. The editor may follow the policy of the journal's editorial board and limit himself to such legal requirements as will then apply to such matters as defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. When making such decisions, the editor may communicate with the deputies or the reviewers.

The editor ensures a fair, impartial and timely peer-review process. The scientific papers must always be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and the editor should seek the additional opinions if necessary.

The editor selects the reviewers who have the appropriate expertise in a given field and follows the best practices to avoid selecting dishonest reviewers. The editor should review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and self-citing suggestions by the reviewers to determine if there is any potential for bias.

The editor should evaluate the manuscripts for intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.

The journal's editorial policies should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that the reviewers and the authors have a good understanding of what is expected of them. The editor will use the standard electronic submission system for all journal releases.

The editor will establish with the publisher a transparent mechanism for appealing against the editorial decisions.

The publisher must not try to influence the journal's ranking by artificially increasing any of the journal's ratings. In particular, the editor may not require references to be made to the articles of this (or any other) journal except for legitimate scientific reasons, and the authors may not be required to reference their own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.

The editor must protect the confidentiality of any material submitted to the journal editorial board and all communication with the reviewers unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers.

Due to the adopted double-blind peer-review system, the editor must protect the identity of the reviewers.

Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted work may not be used in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. The privileged information or ideas obtained from a rough peer review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be reported to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the editor, and then updated as and when new conflicts arise. The publisher may make such statements in the journal.

The editor may not take part in the decisions about the articles that he himself wrote or were written by the family members or colleagues, or that concern products or services in which the editor is interested. In addition, any such submission must follow all of the journal's normal procedures, peer-review must be independent of the respective author/editor and their research groups, and any such article that is published must contain a prominent statement to that effect.

The editor should also make appropriate use of the publisher's systems to detect abuse such as plagiarism.

If the editor is presented with the convincing evidence of misconduct, he should work with the publisher to arrange for a printout of the publication of a correction, recall, expression of concern, or other correction of the record, if this may be relevant.


In addition to the specific ethical responsibilities described below, the reviewers are generally asked to treat the authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to follow the peer-review label.

Any articles received for the review should be treated as confidential documents. The reviewers are not allowed to share reviews or information about the article with anyone, or contact the authors directly without the editor's consent.

Some editors encourage discussions with their colleagues or co-authorship of exercises, but the reviewers should discuss this with the editor first to ensure confidentiality is maintained and the participants receive the appropriate rating.

The unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted work may not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. The privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

The reviewer must be particularly mindful of potential ethical issues at work and should bring them to the editor's attention, including any significant similarities or overlap between the manuscript being considered and any other published article of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any statement that an observation, a derivation, or an argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the appropriate quote.

The reviews should be objective. The reviewers should be aware of any personal biases they may have and take this into account when reviewing the article. The author's personal criticism is inappropriate. The judges should express their views clearly through the supporting arguments.

The reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review the article in which there are potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or ties with any authors, companies or institutions related to the articles.

If the reviewer suggests that the author has cited the work of the reviewer (or his associates), it must be for genuine scientific reasons, and not with the intention of increasing the number of citations of the reviewer or increasing the visibility of his (or his colleagues) work.

The authors of original research studies should present a thorough description of the work done as an objective discussion of its meaning. The basic data should be accurately presented in the article. The article should contain enough detail and reference to allow others to recreate the work. The fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

The authors may be asked to provide research data to support their article for editorial review and/or to meet the journal's open data requirements. The authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data where practicable and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

The authors truthfully represent that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used a work and/or the words of others, that it has been properly cited and that the consent has been obtained, if necessary.

Each time the reference to the scientific achievements of other people should be indicated. The authors should cite publications that have had an impact on the described work and give the work an appropriate context in the broader scientific output. The information obtained privately, such as conversations, correspondence or discussions with the third parties, may not be used or reported without the express written consent of the source.

Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'impersonating' someone else's work as the author's, to copying or paraphrasing large parts of another person’s work (without attributing an author), to reporting the results of research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

The author should not publish papers describing the same research in more than one original journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time is unethical and unacceptable.

It is unacceptable for the author to submit for consideration in another journal an article that has been previously published, unless in the form of a summary or as part of a published lecture or scientific work or as an electronic reprint.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All who have made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors.

If there are other people who have been involved in certain substantive aspects of the work (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be included in the compliments section.

The given author should ensure that the article includes all relevant co-authors and that there are no inappropriate co-authors, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final manuscript and agreed to submit it for publication.

The authors are expected to carefully consider the list and order of authors prior to manuscript submission and to provide the final list of authors at the time of initial submission.

The authors bear collective responsibility for the work. Each author is responsible for ensuring that the questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly researched and resolved.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that carry unusual hazards associated with their use, the author must clearly identify them in the manuscript.

If the work involves animals or humans, the author should ensure that the manuscript states that all procedures were performed in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and the institutional guidelines and that the relevant institutional committees have approved them. The authors should include a statement in the work that informed consent has been obtained for experimenting with the humans. The individuals' privacy rights must always be respected.

In the case of individuals, the author should ensure that the work described was performed in accordance with the World Medical Association's Code of Ethics (Helsinki Declaration) for human experiments. All animal experiments should be in line with the ARRIVE  guidelines and should be carried out in accordance with the UK Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the related guidelines or EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for the research purposes or the US Public Health Service Principles of Humanitarian Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and the Animal Welfare Act where applicable.

If the author wishes to include the case details or other personal data or photos of the patients and others in the JHPOR publication, the relevant consents, permissions and approvals must be obtained. The written approvals must be retained by the author and a copy or proof of such approvals must be provided to JHPOR upon request.

All authors should disclose in their work any financial and personal relationships with other persons or organizations that may be perceived as improperly influencing (bias) their work.

Disclose all sources of financial support for the research and/or article preparation and the role of sponsor in the study design, if any; in collecting, analyzing and interpreting the data; in writing the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source did not have such involvement, please state it.

The examples of potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed include employment, consulting services, shareholding, fees, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations and grants or other funds.

The potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed as early as possible.

When the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, it is the author's responsibility to promptly notify the journal editor or the publisher and cooperate with the editor to withdraw or correct the work if the editor deems it necessary. If the editor or the publisher learns from the third party that the published work contains an error, it is the author's responsibility to cooperate with the editor, including providing the editor with the evidence upon his request.

JHPOR supports the transparency of the clinical trials. As for the given journals, the authors are expected to adhere to the best industry standards for the registration and presentation of the clinical trials.


Editorial Board declares no conflict of interest.

Any conflict of interest should be declared by authors and reviewers.

In case of author conflict of interest this information should be published. In case of reviewer conflict of interest the review proposal should be declined.


The editors require that Authors should reveal individual co-authors’ contribution to the publication (a statement of individual affiliations and contribution should be provided, i.e. the information who is the author of the concepts, assumptions, methods, protocol, etc. used to prepare the publication). Such statement should be sent as a .doc file to our Office via e-mail ( However, the author submitting the manuscript will chiefly be held responsible.


Any cases of suspected data fabrication will be thoroughly investigated, and unless proven otherwise, authors will incur sanctions.


It is unethical to include citations which only purpose is to increase numer of citations of a particular article and/or a particular author. Cited sources should be relevant to submitted work.

About Us

Journal of Health Policy & Outcomes Research (JHPOR) is a peer-reviewed, international scientific journal, covering health policy, pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research in Poland and worldwide. The journal is issued under the auspices of the Polish Society of Pharmacoeconomics.

Subscribe to our newsletter:

Latest Articles

Our Contacts

Śliska 3 lok. 55
00-127 Warszawa
NIP 5252390463
REGON 140936540
KRS 0000277843

2017 © Pro Medicina Foundation