Ethical Principles

Quality of Life and Health Sciences is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, academic honesty, and responsible scholarly communication. The journal recognizes that ethical publishing is essential for protecting the reliability of the scientific record, safeguarding the rights and welfare of research participants, ensuring fairness in peer review, and promoting public trust in academic research.

As a peer-reviewed, open access journal in the fields of quality of life and health sciences, the journal publishes research that may directly or indirectly influence clinical practice, health education, public health policy, rehabilitation, prevention, patient care, and community well-being. Therefore, ethical responsibility is central to every stage of the publication process, from study design and data collection to manuscript preparation, peer review, editorial decision-making, publication, archiving, and post-publication discussion.

The journal expects all parties involved in publication—including authors, reviewers, editors, editorial board members, and the publisher—to act with honesty, fairness, accountability, confidentiality, objectivity, and respect for scientific standards. Publication ethics is not limited to avoiding plagiarism or misconduct; it also includes accurate reporting, responsible authorship, appropriate citation, protection of participants, disclosure of conflicts of interest, respect for confidentiality, correction of errors, and cooperation with editorial investigations.

Quality of Life and Health Sciences follows a double-blind anonymous peer-review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. Each submitted manuscript is evaluated by two or three independent reviewers, depending on the subject matter, methodological complexity, and editorial requirements. This process is designed to support impartiality, scientific rigor, and fair evaluation.

The journal is published quarterly and operates as an open access journal. All published articles are made freely available to readers. The journal’s open access model increases the visibility and use of research, but it also increases the responsibility of authors and editors to ensure that published content is accurate, ethical, properly cited, and scientifically reliable.

This Publication Ethics page explains the ethical responsibilities and expectations for all participants in the publication process.

General Ethical Principles

The ethical policy of Quality of Life and Health Sciences is based on the following principles:

Integrity: All research must be conducted, reported, reviewed, and published honestly. Authors must not fabricate data, falsify findings, manipulate results, plagiarize text, or misrepresent the originality of their work.

Transparency: Authors must clearly describe their methods, data sources, ethical approvals, funding sources, conflicts of interest, and limitations. Editors and reviewers must evaluate manuscripts using transparent and academically justified criteria.

Accountability: Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their manuscripts. Reviewers are responsible for providing fair and constructive evaluations. Editors are responsible for making unbiased decisions based on scientific merit.

Respect for Participants: Research involving human participants must respect dignity, autonomy, privacy, informed consent, confidentiality, and protection from harm.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Fairness: Manuscripts must be evaluated without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, academic rank, personal relationships, or commercial interests.

Correction of the Scholarly Record: If errors, ethical concerns, or misconduct are identified before or after publication, the journal will take appropriate action, including correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction when necessary.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscripts are original, accurate, ethical, and prepared according to the journal’s standards. Submission of a manuscript to Quality of Life and Health Sciences indicates that all authors accept the journal’s ethical policies and agree to cooperate with editorial and publication procedures.

Originality and Integrity of the Work

Authors must submit only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration by another journal or publisher. A manuscript must represent the authors’ own intellectual contribution and must properly acknowledge the work of others.

Authors must not engage in plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, data fabrication, data falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, authorship manipulation, or any other form of misconduct. All sources used in the manuscript must be cited accurately and completely.

Originality also requires that authors present their findings honestly. Results should not be selectively reported in a way that misleads readers. Negative, non-significant, unexpected, or contradictory findings should not be hidden if they are relevant to the research question. Ethical reporting requires that the manuscript reflect the actual study conducted and the actual data obtained.

Accuracy of Reporting

Authors must present their research clearly, accurately, and in sufficient detail to allow readers, reviewers, and future researchers to understand the study. The manuscript should include a clear research problem, appropriate background, justified methodology, transparent analysis, accurate results, and conclusions supported by the findings.

Authors must avoid overstating their results or making claims that are not supported by the data. Conclusions should remain within the limits of the study design, sample, measures, analysis, and context. Limitations should be reported honestly.

In health sciences research, inaccurate reporting can have serious consequences. Poorly reported or exaggerated findings may mislead clinicians, researchers, policymakers, or the public. Therefore, authors are expected to report their studies responsibly and avoid unsupported clinical, therapeutic, diagnostic, or policy claims.

Data Accuracy and Data Integrity

Authors must ensure that the data presented in their manuscript are accurate, complete, and honestly reported. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively omitted, or manipulated to produce desired outcomes.

Fabrication refers to inventing data, participants, measurements, observations, results, or references. Falsification refers to manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, or analyses in a way that misrepresents the research. Both fabrication and falsification are serious forms of misconduct and may lead to rejection, retraction, institutional notification, or other corrective action.

Authors should retain original data, documentation, questionnaires, interview transcripts, consent forms, ethical approval documents, statistical outputs, and other relevant materials for a reasonable period after publication. The journal may request supporting data or documentation if questions arise during peer review or after publication.

Ethical Approval for Human Research

Research involving human participants must be conducted according to accepted ethical standards. Authors must obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee, institutional review board, research ethics council, or equivalent body before conducting the study when such approval is required.

The manuscript must clearly state:

• The name of the ethics committee or institutional review board.
• The approval code or reference number, when available.
• The date of approval, when applicable.
• Confirmation that participants provided informed consent, when required.
• Confirmation that confidentiality and privacy were protected.

Research involving patients, students, children, older adults, individuals with disabilities, people with mental health conditions, prisoners, economically disadvantaged groups, or other potentially vulnerable populations requires particular ethical care. Authors must explain how participants were protected from harm, coercion, pressure, or exploitation.

If a study was exempt from formal ethics approval, authors should state the reason for exemption and identify the authority or institutional policy under which the exemption was granted. Authors should not simply state that ethics approval was “not needed” without explanation.

Informed Consent

Authors must obtain informed consent from participants when required by the study design and ethical standards. Informed consent means that participants were given sufficient information about the study before agreeing to participate.

Participants should be informed about the purpose of the research, procedures, possible risks and benefits, confidentiality protections, voluntary nature of participation, right to withdraw, use of data, and publication of findings. Consent should be obtained without coercion, deception, inappropriate pressure, or unfair inducement.

For research involving minors or individuals who cannot provide full legal consent, consent should be obtained from a parent, legal guardian, or authorized representative, and assent should be obtained from the participant when appropriate.

For qualitative studies, interviews, case reports, photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, or identifiable personal information, authors must ensure that participants have consented to the use and publication of relevant material. Identifying information must be removed unless explicit permission for publication has been obtained.

Privacy and Confidentiality of Participants

Authors must protect the privacy, identity, and personal information of research participants. Manuscripts should not include names, initials, identification numbers, photographs, personal details, institutional identifiers, or other information that could identify participants unless such information is essential and written consent for publication has been obtained.

In small samples, qualitative studies, case studies, clinical reports, or community-based research, anonymity may be difficult to preserve. Authors must take special care to remove or disguise identifying details while maintaining scientific accuracy. Confidentiality must not be compromised for narrative detail or descriptive richness.

Health-related research often involves sensitive personal information, including medical conditions, psychological experiences, disability status, family circumstances, social vulnerability, or lifestyle behaviors. Such information must be handled with respect, discretion, and appropriate safeguards.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work. All listed authors should have contributed meaningfully to the conception or design of the study, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of findings, manuscript drafting, critical revision, or final approval of the manuscript.

All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript before submission and must agree to be accountable for the integrity of the work. Authors should be able to identify their own contributions and should have confidence in the integrity of contributions made by co-authors.

Individuals who provided only administrative support, financial assistance, technical help, language editing, data entry, general supervision, or institutional access should not automatically be listed as authors unless they also meet authorship criteria. Such contributions may be recognized in the acknowledgments section with permission.

Prohibited Authorship Practices

The journal does not accept unethical authorship practices, including:

Guest authorship: Listing a person as an author even though they did not make a substantial contribution.

Gift authorship: Adding someone as an author as a favor, courtesy, or professional obligation.

Honorary authorship: Including a senior academic, administrator, supervisor, or department head who did not contribute sufficiently to the work.

Ghost authorship: Excluding a person who made a substantial contribution to the manuscript.

Authorship sale or exchange: Adding or removing authors for payment, professional benefit, citation advantage, or institutional pressure.

Authorship manipulation: Changing the author list without valid justification or without the agreement of all authors.

Authorship disputes should be resolved by the authors and their institutions. The journal may request written confirmation from all authors regarding authorship changes, contribution statements, or disputes.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal during submission, peer review, revision, production, and post-publication correspondence. The corresponding author must ensure that all authors have approved the manuscript and are aware of the submission.

The corresponding author must also ensure that ethical statements, conflict of interest declarations, funding information, authorship details, acknowledgments, and contact information are accurate. The corresponding author should respond promptly and honestly to editorial requests.

However, the corresponding author is not the only person responsible for the work. All authors share responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, and ethical compliance of the manuscript.

Changes in Authorship

Any change to the author list after submission must be clearly explained and approved by all authors, including authors being added or removed. The journal may require written confirmation from all authors before approving authorship changes.

Changes in authorship after acceptance or publication are considered serious and require strong justification. The journal reserves the right to reject unjustified authorship changes, delay publication while authorship issues are investigated, or refer disputes to the authors’ institutions.

Acknowledgments

Individuals or organizations that contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged with their permission. This may include technical support, language editing, statistical advice, administrative assistance, institutional support, or funding support.

Authors should not acknowledge individuals without their consent, because acknowledgment may imply endorsement of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest that could influence, or appear to influence, the research, analysis, interpretation, or publication of the manuscript.

Conflicts of interest may be financial or non-financial. Financial conflicts may include employment, grants, consulting fees, honoraria, stock ownership, patents, paid expert testimony, commercial relationships, or financial support from organizations with an interest in the research. Non-financial conflicts may include personal relationships, academic competition, institutional affiliations, ideological commitments, professional rivalries, or strong personal beliefs related to the topic.

Disclosure of a conflict of interest does not automatically prevent publication. However, failure to disclose relevant conflicts may undermine trust in the research and may require editorial action.

Authors must include a conflict of interest statement in the manuscript. If no conflicts exist, authors should state that they have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding Disclosure

Authors must disclose all sources of funding, financial support, sponsorship, institutional support, grants, or material assistance related to the research. The role of the funder should be clearly described, especially if the funder was involved in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or publication decisions.

If the funder had no role in the research process, this should also be stated. Transparent funding disclosure allows readers to evaluate possible sources of influence.

Use of Artificial Intelligence and Writing Tools

Authors must use artificial intelligence tools, language models, grammar tools, translation tools, or other automated writing aids responsibly. Such tools must not be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the content, accuracy, integrity, or ethical compliance of the work.

Authors remain fully responsible for any text, analysis, references, interpretation, or content produced with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools. AI-generated content must be carefully checked for accuracy, originality, bias, fabricated references, unsupported claims, and plagiarism.

If artificial intelligence tools were used in a meaningful way during writing, editing, data analysis, coding, image generation, or other parts of manuscript preparation, authors should disclose this use when relevant. AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, create false citations, manipulate images, generate fake peer-review reports, or conceal plagiarism.

Citation Ethics

Authors must cite relevant sources accurately and fairly. Citations should acknowledge previous research, support claims, guide readers to relevant literature, and situate the manuscript within the scholarly field.

Authors must not manipulate citations for unethical purposes. Citation manipulation includes adding unnecessary citations to increase citation counts, citing irrelevant articles, excessive self-citation, coercive citation, or citation stacking between authors, reviewers, journals, or institutions.

Authors should avoid misrepresenting cited sources. A citation should support the statement for which it is used. Authors should not cite papers they have not read or rely only on secondary citations when primary sources are available.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Simultaneous submission is unethical because it wastes editorial and reviewer resources and may lead to duplicate publication.

Authors must not publish the same data, analysis, or findings in multiple articles without proper justification and disclosure. Redundant publication occurs when substantially similar content is published more than once without clear reference to the previous publication.

If a manuscript is based on a thesis, dissertation, conference abstract, preprint, institutional report, or previous dataset, authors should disclose this at submission. The journal will evaluate whether the manuscript represents a sufficiently original and publishable contribution.

Salami Publication

Salami publication refers to dividing one research project or dataset into several small manuscripts with overlapping content in order to increase publication count. This practice may be unethical when the papers do not each provide a distinct research question, analysis, or contribution.

Authors using the same dataset for multiple manuscripts must clearly explain the relationship between the papers and ensure that each manuscript has a unique purpose, analysis, and scholarly contribution. Related publications should be cited and disclosed.

Plagiarism and Text Recycling

All manuscripts submitted to Quality of Life and Health Sciences are screened using iThenticate. The journal uses similarity checking to identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, text recycling, and inappropriate overlap.

Plagiarism includes copying words, ideas, data, images, tables, figures, or structure from another source without proper acknowledgment. Plagiarism may occur even when wording is changed if the ideas or organization are taken without citation.

Text recycling, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when authors reuse substantial parts of their own previously published work without proper citation or justification. Some overlap may be acceptable in methods descriptions or standard terminology, but extensive reuse of introduction, discussion, results, or conclusions is not acceptable without disclosure.

The journal reviews similarity reports carefully and does not rely only on a percentage score. Editors evaluate the nature and context of similarity. Serious plagiarism may result in rejection, retraction, or notification to relevant institutions.

Image, Table, and Figure Integrity

Images, tables, graphs, and figures must accurately represent the data. Authors must not manipulate images or visual materials in a way that changes the meaning of the results.

Inappropriate image manipulation may include deleting, adding, moving, enhancing, obscuring, or duplicating parts of an image in a misleading way. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or size may be acceptable only if they are applied to the entire image and do not distort interpretation.

Tables and figures must not duplicate or misrepresent data. Authors must ensure that numerical values are accurate, labels are correct, and statistical information is consistent with the text.

If authors reproduce or adapt tables, figures, questionnaires, diagrams, or images from another source, they must cite the original source and obtain permission when required.

Statistical and Methodological Responsibility

Authors must use appropriate research methods and statistical analyses. Methods should be described in enough detail to allow evaluation and, when possible, replication.

Statistical tests should be suitable for the study design, sample size, measurement level, assumptions, and research questions. Authors should report relevant statistics accurately and avoid selective reporting. In quantitative studies, authors should present sufficient information about sample characteristics, measures, reliability, validity, assumptions, statistical tests, effect sizes, confidence intervals, and significance levels when applicable.

In qualitative studies, authors should clearly describe the research approach, sampling strategy, data collection procedures, analytic method, researcher reflexivity, trustworthiness strategies, and ethical protections.

In mixed-methods studies, authors should explain how qualitative and quantitative components were integrated and how the design supports the research objectives.

Clinical and Intervention Research

Clinical, therapeutic, behavioral, psychological, educational, rehabilitation, and lifestyle intervention studies must be ethically designed and clearly reported. Authors should describe the intervention content, duration, frequency, setting, provider qualifications, control or comparison conditions, participant allocation, outcome measures, and follow-up procedures.

Studies involving clinical interventions should include information about participant safety, adverse events, informed consent, ethical approval, and trial registration when applicable. Claims about effectiveness should be supported by the design and data. Authors should avoid presenting preliminary or limited findings as definitive clinical evidence.

Research Involving Vulnerable Populations

Research involving vulnerable populations requires particular ethical sensitivity. Vulnerable populations may include children, adolescents, older adults, individuals with disabilities, patients with severe illness, people with mental health conditions, economically disadvantaged individuals, refugees, prisoners, institutionalized persons, or individuals with limited capacity to consent.

Authors must demonstrate that participation was voluntary, risks were minimized, consent procedures were appropriate, privacy was protected, and the study had ethical justification. Researchers must not exploit vulnerability or use inappropriate pressure to recruit participants.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play a central role in maintaining the scientific quality and ethical standards of the journal. Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and confidential evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute, or use manuscript content without permission from the journal. Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or interpretations from a manuscript for their own research or professional advantage.

Confidentiality applies before, during, and after the review process. Even if a manuscript is rejected, withdrawn, or later published elsewhere, reviewers must continue to respect confidentiality.

Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on scientific merit, methodological quality, originality, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviews should be respectful, evidence-based, and constructive.

Reviewers must not allow personal bias, academic competition, nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or theoretical disagreement to influence their evaluation. Criticism should focus on the manuscript, not the authors.

Personal attacks, insulting language, discriminatory remarks, or hostile comments are not acceptable. Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should explain their reasoning clearly and professionally.

Reviewer Expertise

Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript. If only part of the manuscript falls within their expertise, reviewers should inform the editor.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if they cannot provide a fair and informed evaluation or if they cannot complete the review within the requested time.

Conflicts of Interest for Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their evaluation. Conflicts may arise from personal relationships, professional collaboration, academic rivalry, institutional affiliation, financial interest, or involvement in similar research.

In the double-blind review process, reviewers may not know the identity of authors. However, if reviewers recognize the authors or believe they have a conflict, they should inform the editor immediately.

Ethical Concerns Identified by Reviewers

Reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, ethical violations, undeclared conflicts of interest, inappropriate statistical analysis, image manipulation, or other misconduct.

Reviewers should also identify relevant published work that has not been cited when such omission affects the scholarly quality or accuracy of the manuscript. However, reviewers should not request unnecessary citations to their own work or to the journal for personal or metric-related benefit.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity, quality, fairness, and transparency of the publication process. Editorial decisions must be based on the scholarly merit of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by financial considerations, personal relationships, institutional pressure, political views, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, or commercial interests. The payment of Article Processing Charges must never influence peer review or editorial decisions.

The journal charges an Article Processing Charge only for accepted manuscripts, but acceptance must be based solely on academic quality, ethical compliance, and editorial suitability. Editors must ensure that the APC policy does not compromise editorial independence.

Initial Editorial Screening

Editors may reject manuscripts before peer review if they are outside the journal’s scope, lack sufficient originality, have serious methodological flaws, fail to meet ethical requirements, contain plagiarism, or do not meet minimum standards of scholarly presentation.

Desk rejection should be based on clear editorial reasons. When possible, authors may be informed of the main reason for rejection.

Management of Peer Review

Editors are responsible for selecting qualified reviewers and managing the double-blind anonymous review process. Reviewers should be chosen based on expertise, objectivity, availability, and absence of known conflicts of interest.

Editors should consider reviewer comments carefully but are not required to follow reviewer recommendations automatically. The final decision belongs to the editor. Editors should weigh the strength of reviewer arguments, the quality of the manuscript, ethical considerations, and the journal’s standards.

Confidentiality by Editors

Editors and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential. They must not disclose manuscript content to anyone except those directly involved in editorial evaluation, peer review, and publication processing.

Editors must not use unpublished manuscript content for their own research or advantage.

Conflicts of Interest for Editors

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Conflicts may include recent collaboration with authors, personal relationships, academic rivalry, financial interest, institutional connection, or direct involvement in the research.

When an editor has a conflict, the manuscript should be assigned to another qualified editor or editorial board member.

Fair Treatment of Authors

Editors must ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly and consistently. Authors should receive clear decisions and reviewer comments when appropriate. Editors should not delay decisions unnecessarily.

Authors have the right to receive a fair evaluation, but they do not have the right to publication. Rejection is an editorial decision and may be based on scientific quality, ethical concerns, scope, originality, or priority.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

The publisher is responsible for supporting the journal’s editorial independence, technical infrastructure, website availability, archiving, production quality, and ethical publishing standards. The publisher should not interfere with editorial decisions.

The publisher must support appropriate action when ethical concerns arise, including correction, investigation, retraction, or publication of notices. The publisher should also support the long-term availability of published articles through the journal website.

Misconduct and Unethical Practices

Quality of Life and Health Sciences takes all allegations of misconduct seriously. Misconduct may occur before submission, during peer review, after acceptance, or after publication.

Examples of misconduct include:

• Plagiarism.
• Self-plagiarism or inappropriate text recycling.
• Duplicate submission.
• Duplicate publication.
• Redundant publication.
• Fabrication of data.
• Falsification of data.
• Manipulation of images, tables, or figures.
• Fake ethics approval.
• Lack of informed consent.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Authorship manipulation.
• Ghost, guest, gift, or honorary authorship.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Citation manipulation.
• Use of fake reviewer identities.
• Submission by paper mills or commercial manuscript agencies using unethical practices.
• Misrepresentation of institutional affiliation.
• Misuse of artificial intelligence tools.
• Failure to disclose related manuscripts or prior publication.
• Breach of participant confidentiality.

The journal may investigate suspected misconduct at any stage. Authors are expected to cooperate with investigations and provide original data, ethics approval documents, consent forms, or other evidence when requested.

Plagiarism Investigation

When plagiarism is suspected, the editorial team may compare the manuscript with the original sources, review the iThenticate report, consult editors or reviewers, and request an explanation from the authors.

Minor citation or paraphrasing problems may result in a request for revision. Serious plagiarism may result in rejection. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction depending on the severity.

Duplicate Submission and Duplicate Publication

If the journal discovers that a manuscript has been submitted to another journal at the same time, the manuscript may be rejected. If duplicate publication is discovered after publication, the journal may take corrective action.

Authors must disclose any related manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, thesis materials, or previous publications that overlap with the submitted work.

Peer-Review Manipulation

Peer-review manipulation is a serious violation of publication ethics. It may include submitting fake reviewer names, using false email addresses, suggesting reviewers with fabricated identities, interfering with reviewer selection, submitting fraudulent review reports, or attempting to influence reviewers outside the official journal system.

If peer-review manipulation is suspected, the journal may reject the manuscript, cancel the review process, notify institutions, or retract published work.

Paper Mills and Purchased Manuscripts

The journal does not accept manuscripts produced, sold, or manipulated by paper mills or unethical commercial agencies. Authors must be able to explain and verify the origin, data, methodology, analysis, and authorship of their manuscript.

Signs of paper-mill activity may include inconsistent data, false affiliations, fake ethics approvals, manipulated images, irrelevant citations, unusual authorship changes, template-like writing, or inability to provide raw data. The journal may investigate such concerns and reject or retract manuscripts when appropriate.

Ethical Use of Human Data

Authors using human data must ensure that data were collected lawfully, ethically, and with appropriate consent or approval. This applies to clinical records, survey responses, interview data, online data, social media data, educational records, institutional records, and secondary datasets.

When using secondary data, authors must confirm that the data use complies with the original consent, data access conditions, privacy rules, and ethical requirements.

Confidential and Sensitive Information

Research in quality of life and health sciences may include sensitive information about health status, psychological distress, disability, family relationships, social problems, lifestyle behaviors, socioeconomic status, trauma, or personal experiences. Authors must handle such information carefully.

Sensitive data should be anonymized or de-identified whenever possible. Identifiable information should not be published unless essential and explicitly consented to by the participant.

Corrections

The journal may publish a correction when a published article contains an error that affects interpretation, accuracy, metadata, author details, funding information, conflict of interest disclosure, or other important elements, but does not invalidate the main findings.

Corrections may be requested by authors, readers, editors, or institutions. The journal will evaluate the nature of the error and determine the appropriate form of correction.

Examples of correctable errors include:

• Incorrect author affiliation.
• Minor data reporting error.
• Incorrect table label.
• Missing funding statement.
• Missing acknowledgment.
• Typographical error affecting interpretation.
• Incorrect methodological detail that does not invalidate the findings.

Corrections are part of responsible scholarly publishing and should not be viewed as misconduct when errors are honest and promptly disclosed.

Retractions

A retraction may be issued when a published article is seriously unreliable, unethical, fraudulent, plagiarized, duplicated, or otherwise invalid. Retraction is used to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the findings should not be relied upon.

Reasons for retraction may include:

• Fabricated or falsified data.
• Major plagiarism.
• Duplicate publication.
• Unethical research.
• Lack of required ethical approval.
• Lack of informed consent.
• Serious methodological error invalidating conclusions.
• Manipulated peer review.
• Authorship fraud.
• Undisclosed conflicts that seriously compromise trust.
• Unreliable findings due to error or misconduct.

A retraction notice should clearly identify the article, explain the reason for retraction, and remain linked to the original article. The original article may remain accessible with a clear retraction label to preserve the scholarly record.

Expressions of Concern

The journal may publish an expression of concern when serious questions have been raised about a published article but the investigation is not yet complete, evidence is inconclusive, or institutional findings are pending.

An expression of concern alerts readers to potential problems while allowing time for a fair investigation. It may later be followed by a correction, retraction, or removal of concern depending on the outcome.

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before publication. Withdrawal requests should be submitted in writing by the corresponding author and should include the reason for withdrawal. The journal may require confirmation from all authors.

Withdrawal after peer review, acceptance, or production may be disruptive and should only occur for valid reasons. Authors must not use withdrawal to avoid ethical investigation or to submit the same manuscript elsewhere after receiving reviewer feedback.

Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe there has been a significant misunderstanding, factual error, procedural problem, or unfair evaluation. Appeals must be respectful, evidence-based, and submitted within a reasonable time.

An appeal should clearly explain why the authors believe the decision should be reconsidered. Disagreement with reviewer opinions alone is not sufficient. The editor may consult additional reviewers, editorial board members, or independent experts before making a final decision.

The decision after appeal may uphold the original decision, request revision, invite resubmission, or take another appropriate action. The appeal decision is final.

Complaints

The journal welcomes legitimate complaints regarding editorial procedures, ethical concerns, review quality, publication errors, or journal policies. Complaints should be submitted with clear details and supporting evidence when possible.

The journal will review complaints objectively and confidentially. Complaints should be professional and should not include abusive, defamatory, or threatening language. The journal will not consider complaints intended to harass editors, reviewers, authors, or staff.

Post-Publication Discussion

The journal recognizes that scholarly discussion may continue after publication. Readers may contact the journal if they identify errors, ethical concerns, unclear reporting, or issues that affect interpretation.

Post-publication concerns will be evaluated carefully. When necessary, the journal may contact authors for explanation, request data or documentation, consult experts, publish corrections, or take other editorial action.

Scientific disagreement alone does not necessarily require correction or retraction. However, credible concerns about accuracy, ethics, or integrity will be taken seriously.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

If the journal publishes special issues, thematic sections, or invited collections, the same ethical standards apply. Guest editors, invited editors, and special issue editors must follow the journal’s policies on confidentiality, conflict of interest, peer review, editorial independence, and publication ethics.

Manuscripts submitted to special issues must undergo appropriate peer review and must not receive automatic acceptance. Editorial decisions must be based on quality and ethical compliance, not personal relationships, invitation status, or thematic fit alone.

Advertising, Sponsorship, and Commercial Influence

Editorial decisions must remain independent from advertising, sponsorship, institutional relationships, APC payment, or commercial interests. The journal does not allow sponsors, advertisers, funders, or commercial partners to influence peer review or editorial decisions.

Any sponsored content, if accepted by the journal, must be clearly identified and separated from peer-reviewed scholarly content.

Open Access Ethics

As an open access journal, Quality of Life and Health Sciences makes published articles freely available to readers. Open access increases dissemination and public use of research, but it does not reduce ethical requirements. Open access publication must remain rigorous, transparent, and academically responsible.

The journal’s Article Processing Charge is 3,000,000 Tomans for accepted articles. The APC supports publication services and open access availability. Payment of the APC does not guarantee acceptance and does not influence peer review, editorial decisions, reviewer selection, or publication priority.

Copyright and Licensing Ethics

Authors retain full copyright of their published work. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license allows non-commercial sharing and adaptation with proper attribution.

Authors must ensure that any third-party material included in their manuscripts is used ethically and legally. This includes tables, images, figures, questionnaires, scales, diagrams, photographs, and copyrighted text. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission when required.

Users of published articles must cite the original work properly and must not use the material in misleading, unethical, or unauthorized commercial ways.

Repository and Self-Archiving Ethics

Authors may self-archive their published articles in institutional repositories, personal academic websites, non-commercial subject repositories, and other appropriate platforms. When doing so, authors should cite the original publication in Quality of Life and Health Sciences and link to the journal version when possible.

Self-archiving should preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors should not alter the published article in ways that create confusion or misrepresent the official version.

Confidentiality in Editorial Communications

All communications between authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff should be treated professionally and confidentially. Reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, decision letters, and unpublished manuscript materials should not be posted publicly or used inappropriately.

Authors must not attempt to identify, contact, pressure, or retaliate against reviewers. Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review.

Respectful Communication

The journal expects respectful communication among all participants in the publication process. Authors, reviewers, editors, and staff should communicate professionally, even in cases of disagreement.

Abusive language, harassment, threats, discrimination, defamatory statements, or personal attacks are not acceptable. The journal reserves the right to discontinue correspondence or take appropriate action in cases of serious misconduct in communication.

Ethical Responsibilities in Review Articles

Review articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, scoping reviews, narrative reviews, and other evidence synthesis manuscripts must be prepared with transparency and accuracy. Authors should describe their search strategy, inclusion criteria, selection process, analysis approach, and limitations as appropriate for the review type.

Review authors must avoid selective citation, biased interpretation, unsupported claims, and misrepresentation of the literature. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses should report methods clearly enough to allow evaluation of reliability.

Ethical Responsibilities in Qualitative Research

Qualitative research must protect participant dignity, confidentiality, and interpretive accuracy. Authors should describe recruitment, consent, data collection, analysis, reflexivity, and trustworthiness procedures.

When using participant quotations, authors must ensure that quotations do not reveal identity unless explicit permission has been obtained. Translated quotations should preserve meaning and should not distort participant experiences.

Researchers should avoid exploiting participant narratives, especially when participants describe trauma, illness, disability, family conflict, social vulnerability, or psychological distress.

Ethical Responsibilities in Quantitative Research

Quantitative research must be reported with statistical transparency and methodological accuracy. Authors should describe sample size, sampling method, instruments, validity, reliability, assumptions, statistical tests, missing data, and limitations.

Authors must not manipulate analyses to achieve significant results. Selective reporting, p-hacking, inappropriate subgroup analysis, changing hypotheses after analysis without disclosure, and suppressing non-significant findings are unethical.

Ethical Responsibilities in Mixed-Methods Research

Mixed-methods research should clearly explain the relationship between qualitative and quantitative components. Authors should describe how data were integrated, how findings complement or explain each other, and how the design supports the research question.

Both qualitative and quantitative ethical standards apply to mixed-methods studies.

Ethical Responsibilities in Case Reports and Case-Based Studies

Case reports and case-based studies must protect patient or participant confidentiality. Authors must obtain appropriate consent when identifiable details are included. Even when names are removed, authors should consider whether the participant could be recognized through clinical, demographic, geographic, or contextual details.

The educational or scientific value of the case should justify publication. Sensitive personal information should be included only when necessary.

Ethical Responsibilities in Student and Educational Research

Research involving students, trainees, or educational settings must ensure voluntary participation and protection from coercion. Students should not feel pressured to participate because of grades, teacher authority, institutional expectations, or fear of negative consequences.

If researchers have authority over participants, such as teachers, supervisors, clinicians, or managers, additional safeguards should be used to protect voluntariness.

Ethical Responsibilities in Online and Digital Research

Research using online surveys, digital platforms, mobile applications, social media data, telehealth systems, or digital records must address privacy, consent, data security, and confidentiality.

Public availability of online information does not automatically mean that it can be used without ethical consideration. Authors should consider user expectations of privacy, sensitivity of content, platform rules, and potential risks of identification.

Data Sharing and Availability

The journal encourages transparency in data reporting. When appropriate and ethically possible, authors may provide access to data, materials, analysis codes, or supplementary files. However, data sharing must not violate participant confidentiality, consent agreements, institutional rules, or legal requirements.

For studies involving sensitive health or personal information, authors should explain any restrictions on data availability. If data cannot be shared, authors may state that data are unavailable due to privacy, ethical, legal, or institutional restrictions.

Ethical Reporting of Limitations

Authors must report limitations honestly. Limitations may include sample size, sampling method, generalizability, measurement limitations, design constraints, lack of randomization, self-report bias, missing data, short follow-up, lack of control group, cultural context, or other methodological issues.

Reporting limitations does not weaken a manuscript; it strengthens scientific transparency. Readers need accurate information to interpret findings responsibly.

Ethical Reporting of Conclusions

Conclusions should be directly supported by the findings. Authors must avoid exaggerating implications, making causal claims from non-causal designs, generalizing beyond the sample, or recommending clinical practice changes without sufficient evidence.

In health-related research, overstated conclusions may mislead practitioners or patients. Authors should clearly distinguish between evidence, interpretation, speculation, and recommendation.

Editorial Action in Cases of Ethical Concern

When ethical concerns arise, the journal may take one or more of the following actions:

• Request clarification from authors.
• Request original data or documentation.
• Request ethics approval documents.
• Request consent documentation.
• Consult reviewers or editorial board members.
• Conduct additional similarity checks.
• Suspend peer review.
• Reject the manuscript.
• Publish a correction.
• Publish an expression of concern.
• Retract the article.
• Notify authors’ institutions or relevant authorities when appropriate.
• Ban or restrict future submissions in serious cases.

The action taken will depend on the nature, severity, evidence, and timing of the concern.

Cooperation with Investigations

Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to cooperate with ethical investigations. Authors should respond honestly to requests for explanation or documentation. Failure to respond or refusal to provide reasonable evidence may be considered in editorial decisions.

The journal will seek to handle investigations fairly and confidentially. Accusations of misconduct should not be made lightly and should be supported by evidence.

Protection of Whistleblowers and Complainants

Individuals who raise ethical concerns in good faith should be treated respectfully and confidentially. The journal will not disclose the identity of complainants unnecessarily. However, in some cases, complete anonymity may not be possible if investigation requires specific evidence or institutional involvement.

The journal does not tolerate retaliation against individuals who raise legitimate ethical concerns.

Ethical Duties After Publication

Authors’ responsibilities do not end after publication. If authors discover a significant error in their published article, they should promptly notify the journal and cooperate in correcting the record.

Authors should also respond professionally to reasonable post-publication questions about their work. If concerns arise regarding data, ethics, or interpretation, authors should assist the journal in evaluating the issue.

Final Statement

Quality of Life and Health Sciences is dedicated to publishing reliable, ethical, and scientifically meaningful research that contributes to the improvement of health, well-being, and quality of life. The journal’s publication ethics policy is designed to protect authors, reviewers, editors, readers, participants, institutions, and the scientific record.

All authors submitting to the journal are expected to read and follow this policy. Reviewers and editors are likewise expected to uphold these standards throughout the peer-review and publication process. By maintaining rigorous ethical standards, Quality of Life and Health Sciences seeks to support responsible research, trustworthy publication, and the advancement of knowledge in quality of life and health sciences.