Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare represents an interdisciplinary and international forum for qualitative research in healthcare settings. The journal is conceived as a site for the emergence of dialogue between researchers and academics and healthcare practitioners; it allows an exchange between multiple parties in the health and social service professions, patients and clients as well as graduate students and researchers who practice qualitative methods.

Qualitative research approaches healthcare in a completely different way from quantitative research, providing important insights into health-related phenomena, generating new avenues for empirical questions. Qualitative research examines lived experience and relational processes as the basis of social phenomena, including those related to health. Therefore, it can answer to questions that quantitative research cannot, such as why people do not adhere to a life-saving treatment regimen or why a certain healthcare intervention is so successful, or fails. It uses many methods of data collection and numerous approaches to data analysis that range from systematic coding to phenomelogical and inductive approaches.

Each issue of Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare provides readers with a varied array of material and commentaries on important people and issues in healthcare as well as peer-reviewed articles that address and examine:

  • the illness experience from multiple and varied perspectives
  • constructions of health, illness and healthcare that highlight relational and cultural contexts
  • healthcare policies in various organizational and institutional settings
  • attention to the communicative dynamics of the patient-provider relationship
  • narrative approaches to health

 

 

Section Policies

Original Articles

(3500 words max, abstract 180 words max, 30 references max, 3/5 tables and/or figures)
In general, this kind of publication should be divided into an Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References. A maximum of 10 authors is permitted and additional authors should be listed in an ad hoc Appendix.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

(4000 words max, abstract 180 words max, minimum 40 references, 3/5 tables and/or figures)
They should be introduced by a general summary of content in the form of an Abstract. Following a short introduction, putting the study into context and defining the aim, reviews will concentrate on the most recent developments in the field. A review should clearly describe the search strategy followed (key words, inclusion, exclusion criteria, search engines, ...). No particular format is required; headings should be used to designate the major divisions of the paper.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Reports

(about 1800 words, abstract 150 words max, 15 references max, 1-2 tables and/or 3 figures max)
A case report is a detailed narrative of symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatments and follow-up of one or several patients. Cases that present a diagnostic, ethical or management challenge or highlight aspects of mechanisms of injury, pharmacology and histopathology or are accompanied by a literature review of the topic presented are deemed of particular educational value. They should be divided into: Abstract, Introduction, Case report(s), Discussion, Conclusions and References.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All of our journals follow the WAME Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals about peer review. The Editorial Board of each journal will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. Those articles which fail to reach the scientific standards of the journal may be declined without further review. Those articles which satisfy the requirements of the Editorial Board will be sent to a maximum of three referees. These are experts in the field who have agreed to provide a rapid assessment of the article. Every effort will be made to provide an editorial decision as to acceptance for publication within 4-6 weeks of submission. Referees may request a revision of the article to be made. In this case, it is generally understood that only one revised version can be considered for a further appraisal under the peer review system. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the final selection of referees to conduct the peer review process for that journal. The names of referees will not be made available to authors. However, referees will be informed as to the identity of the authors whose articles are subject to review. All members of the Editorial Board and referees are asked to declare any competing interests they may have in reviewing a manuscript. If on receiving the editorial decision concerning their manuscript authors are not satisfied they are invited to appeal to the Editorial Office. In cases in which this is considered appropriate a second opinion on the manuscript will be requested.

 

Publication Frequency

All papers are published as soon as they have been accepted, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Pre- and post-prints

PAGEPress allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.

 

Indexing

PAGEPress is currently working with the major databases and online resources, such as Pubmed/Medline, Pubmedcentral, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), IndexCopernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, OpenJ-Gate, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, Sherpa/Romeo, Socolar, to track Oncology Reviews articles. PAGEPress also have agreements with EBSCO Host, Elsevier Scopus, Bibliosan to track this Journal. PAGEPress is also working closely with Thomson Reuters (ISI) to ensure that citation analysis of articles published this Journal will be available as soon as possible.

 

Publication Ethics

Editorship

PAGEPress strongly support the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors; all individuals collaborating with PAGEPress are strongly invited to comply with this mission.

Ethics

All research articles published by PAGEPress journals are subject to a rigorous ethical standards. Our journals endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the form the peer review process will take; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. PAGEPress endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, too.

Plagiarism
The Editorial Board of our journals will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in that journal. All submissions we receive are checked for plagiarism by using online available tools as eTBLASTor iThenticate®. Any suspected misconduct ends up with a quick rejection and is then reported to the European Science Foundation and to the US Office of Research Integrity.

The European Science Foundation released a Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting papers to our journals are required to adopt these policies.

Below some online resource to help you in understanding plagiarism:

Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.

Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.

Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.

Conflict of Interests

Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from negligible to great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.

When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases.

Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors' right to publish.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist and the reviewer has failed to disclose them or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.

Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013 (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the World Medical Association (2016 revision, https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-statement-on-animal-use-in-biomedical-research/) and from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare (http://www.veteditors.org/consensus-author-guidelines-on-animal-ethics-and-welfare-for-editors). When reporting experiments on ecosystems involving non-native species, Authors are bound to ensure compliance with the institutional and national guide for the preservation of native biodiversity.

See our policy about Peer Review

See our policy about Privacy

 
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185     •     Privacy