The Healthcare Quality Professionals Journal (HQPJ) is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal considers research misconduct a serious violation of responsible academic and professional practice.
Research submitted to or published by HQPJ must be conducted, analyzed, reported, and communicated honestly. Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deliberate misrepresentation, inappropriate manipulation of research data, unethical use of participant information, or other practices that compromise the reliability of scholarly research are not acceptable.
What Constitutes Research Misconduct?
Research misconduct includes deliberate, reckless, or seriously inappropriate practices that compromise the authenticity, reliability, ethical integrity, or scholarly presentation of research:
Fabrication
Inventing research data, participant information, observations, interviews, measurements, survey responses, outcomes, or other evidence that did not actually exist.
Falsification
Manipulating research materials, processes, data, images, records, statistical analyses, or findings so that the research is inaccurately represented.
Plagiarism
Using another person’s words, ideas, methods, data, figures, or intellectual contribution without appropriate acknowledgment or permission where required.
Deliberate Misrepresentation
Intentionally presenting misleading information about research methods, findings, authorship, participant numbers, ethical approval, funding, or study outcomes.
- Fabricating research participants or samples
- Inventing survey or interview responses
- Falsifying clinical or healthcare records
- Manipulating statistical results selectively
- Inappropriate image or figure manipulation
- Misrepresentation of ethical approval / informed consent
- Plagiarism or unattributed text copying
- Concealment of significant methodological problems
- False statements about data collection
- Misrepresentation of authorship contributions
- Deliberate concealment of relevant conflicts of interest
Healthcare Data & Image Integrity
- Patient information and clinical outcomes must not be altered or fabricated.
- Quality indicators and audit results must be reported accurately.
- Healthcare performance data must not be misrepresented.
- Participant confidentiality and privacy must be strictly protected.
- Images, medical photographs, and dashboards must not be deceptively altered.
- Graphs must accurately represent reported numerical values.
- Data points must not be selectively removed or duplicated.
- All relevant image processing must be transparently declared.
Authorship Misconduct & Misuse of AI
Authorship Misconduct
- Gift Authorship: Including individuals based on seniority, position, or funding without scholarly contribution.
- Ghost Authorship: Omitting individuals who made substantial qualifying scholarly contributions.
- False Contribution Claims: Misrepresenting roles in research, analysis, or writing.
- Unauthorized Changes: Rearranging authors without agreement from contributors.
Misuse of Generative AI Tools
- AI-generated references and research data must not be fabricated.
- AI output does not replace author accountability or scholarly verification.
- Confidential participant and patient data must not be fed into public AI tools.
- Material use of AI must be disclosed transparently upon submission.
Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers & Editors
Authors
Maintain accurate research records, report findings honestly, preserve raw data, protect participant confidentiality, and correct errors promptly.
Reviewers
Inform the editorial team confidentially if credible evidence of data fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate submission, or ethical concerns is noticed.
Editors
Evaluate research-integrity concerns carefully, objectively, and proportionately while maintaining procedural fairness and confidentiality.
Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Initial Assessment
Assess whether the allegation is specific, credible, and relevant to a submitted or published work.
Request Info
Request clarification, research records, underlying raw data, or ethical approval documents.
Editorial Evaluation
Editors review the available evidence and may seek independent specialist advice if needed.
Author Response
Authors are given an opportunity to respond to material concerns before a final decision is reached.
Editorial Action
Determine appropriate action according to the seriousness of concern and effect on reliability.
Possible Editorial Actions
| Action Type | Description & Procedure |
|---|---|
| Request Clarification | Seek additional explanations, documents, raw data, or evidence before determining whether misconduct occurred. |
| Reject Manuscript | Reject a submitted manuscript where serious misconduct or unreliability is substantiated before publication. |
| Correction | Publish an official correction when a significant but limited error can be corrected without invalidating overall findings. |
| Expression of Concern | Issue an expression of concern when substantial questions exist but available evidence does not yet support a definitive conclusion. |
| Retraction | Retract an article when serious misconduct or unreliability substantially compromises the integrity of published findings. |
Misconduct vs. Honest Error
Unintentional calculation errors, methodological disagreements, or differences in interpretation do not constitute misconduct. However, significant errors affecting the scholarly record will still be corrected transparently.
Confidentiality & Fairness
Allegations are assessed impartially based on factual evidence. Individuals are not presumed responsible solely because an allegation is made. Misconduct reviews remain confidential during evaluation.
Where credible evidence indicates that fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, serious data manipulation, unethical research conduct, or another form of research misconduct has compromised a manuscript or published article, Healthcare Quality Professionals Journal (HQPJ) may take appropriate editorial action to protect the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.