Skip to main content
The Journal of Global HealthInternational Health JournalEvidence for health where it's hardest to deliver
Vol.
XXIV
No.
04
Year
2026
Menu

Quick Links

ArticlesCommunity ForumContact
Language
Appearance
Editorial Policy

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Global Health Equipment Review·Field Series·Evidence Desk·Peer-reviewed in spirit · Educational

The conduct we require of everyone who produces, reviews, or contributes to an assessment — on authorship, plagiarism, data integrity, conflicts of interest, undisclosed funding, and how we handle an allegation of misconduct. Our practice follows the spirit of widely-recognised guidance on publication integrity, stated as our own commitments rather than as a borrowed badge.

Read our peer-review policyContact the editors
Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Why we publish this

Ethics as an operating commitment, not an accreditation claim

A publication that grades equipment field programs depend on owes its readers a clear account of how it conducts itself. This statement is that account. We align our practice with the principles articulated in international guidance on research and publication ethics — on authorship, integrity, conflict of interest, and the correction of the record — and we state them here as commitments we hold ourselves to.

We are careful about what we do not claim. We do not assert formal membership of a publishing-ethics body, a specific accreditation, or a citation metric we cannot demonstrate. What we offer instead is a transparent, dated, and correctable process — described in our editorial standards and peer-review policy — and the undertaking that follows.

From the review desk

The commitments that govern our work

Each applies to the editorial desk, its reviewers, and anyone whose contribution informs a published assessment.

  1. 01

    Authorship and attribution

    An assessment carries the desk's name when it has been produced and checked under our rubric. Where a specific contribution or analysis warrants individual attribution, it is named on that review. We do not attach credentials to borrow authority a verdict has not earned on the evidence, and we do not list contributors we cannot stand behind.

  2. 02

    Originality and no plagiarism

    Our analysis is our own. Where we draw on a specification, a standard, a study, or a field report, it is cited by its source and role. We do not present another party's text, data, or conclusions as ours, and we treat the unattributed reuse of others' work as misconduct on our side as readily as on anyone else's.

  3. 03

    Data and evidence integrity

    We characterise every source for what it is, date it, and label thin evidence as provisional rather than dressing it as certainty. We do not selectively omit field-failure evidence to flatter a verdict, fabricate a test result, or imply a certification a device does not hold.

  4. 04

    Conflicts of interest and funding

    No commercial party pays for, supplies, or pre-approves an assessment. Anyone who designed, distributes, funds, or holds a stake in a device — or a direct competitor — is excluded from grading it. Any relationship that could be perceived to bear on a review, including a sample provided for evaluation, is disclosed on that review.

Plate II
Fig. — field plate
Figure. Engraved reference plate — evaluating equipment on field resilience, not lab-bench ideals.
Conflicts and funding

Undisclosed interest is the failure we guard against hardest

The single most corrosive thing for a review platform is a hidden interest. We address it structurally rather than relying on goodwill. Reviewers and contributors confirm the absence of disqualifying interests before they touch an assessment; the firewall between editorial judgment and commercial relationships is described in full in our editorial standards, and the exclusion rules for reviewers in our peer-review policy.

On funding specifically: we accept no payment, equipment, or placement in exchange for a verdict, and no sponsored rankings appear on this platform. Where a device is provided as a sample for evaluation, that fact is disclosed on the review and does not buy a favourable grade. Absent a disclosure on a given assessment, readers may take it that no such relationship exists — and if one is later found to exist, that omission is itself a matter handled under the procedure below.

Our field-equipment review method

How we handle an allegation of misconduct

When a credible concern is raised — plagiarism, undisclosed interest, fabricated evidence, or a serious error of fact — it follows a defined path rather than an ad-hoc reaction.

  1. 01Step

    Receive and acknowledge

    Any reader, contributor, or affected party can raise a concern with the editors. We acknowledge it, record it, and treat the substance of the allegation, not the standing of the person raising it, as what matters.

  2. 02Step

    Assess credibility

    An editor not associated with the assessment in question examines whether the concern is supported by documentable evidence. Anonymous concerns are considered on their merits; unsupported assertions are not pursued past this stage, and we say so.

  3. 03Step

    Investigate against the record

    Where the concern has merit, we re-examine the assessment, the evidence basis, and any disclosures, and we put specific points to the people involved. The review depth is proportionate to the seriousness of what is alleged.

  4. 04Step

    Act and document

    If wrongdoing or material error is confirmed, we correct, append an expression of concern, or retract under our corrections-and-retractions policy, and we record what was done and why. If the concern is not borne out, we say that plainly too. Either way the outcome enters the record.

Method of review
Review criteriaBy which we judge field gear
01Criterion
0
Paid placements or sponsored verdicts, ever
02Criterion
100%
Disqualifying interests disclosed or excluded
03Criterion
1
Standard applied to the desk, reviewers, and contributors alike
Standards of the desk
Correspondence

Queries to the desk

05 entries on file
Q1.Do you claim membership of a publication-ethics organisation?

No. We align our practice with the spirit of widely-recognised guidance on publication and research integrity, and we state those principles here as our own commitments. We do not claim formal membership of any ethics body, a specific accreditation, or a citation metric we cannot demonstrate. What we offer is a transparent, dated, and correctable process you can examine for yourself.

Q2.How do you define a conflict of interest?

Any financial, design, distribution, funding, or professional relationship — held by a reviewer, contributor, or editor, or by an organisation they represent — that bears on, or could reasonably be perceived to bear on, the assessment of a device or its direct competitor. Disqualifying interests lead to exclusion; perceivable but non-disqualifying ones are disclosed on the review. Sample provision for evaluation is always disclosed.

Q3.What counts as research or publication malpractice here?

Plagiarism or unattributed reuse of others' work; fabrication or selective omission of evidence to shape a verdict; implying a certification or standard a device does not hold; undisclosed conflicts of interest or funding; and misrepresenting the basis or limits of an assessment. The standard applies to the editorial desk as strictly as to any contributor.

Q4.How do I raise a concern, and what happens next?

Contact the editors with the specific assessment and the evidence behind your concern. We acknowledge it, an editor unconnected to the work assesses its credibility, and credible concerns are investigated against the record with the people involved. Confirmed problems are corrected, flagged with an expression of concern, or retracted under our corrections-and-retractions policy, and the outcome is documented. Concerns that are not borne out are stated as such.

Q5.How does this connect to your other policies?

This statement sets the conduct; the editorial standards define how a device is graded; the peer-review policy defines how an assessment is independently checked; and the corrections-and-retractions policy defines how the record is repaired when something goes wrong. They are one discipline described from four angles.

ArticleField Series

The conduct beneath three checkpoints

This statement is the conduct layer underneath the whole framework. Our editorial standards define how a device is graded; our peer-review policy defines how a draft assessment is independently checked before it carries the journal's name; and our corrections-and-retractions policy defines how the record is repaired when something goes wrong. This page defines the ethics that bind everyone who touches any of those stages — desk, reviewers, and contributors alike. They are one discipline described from several angles, and a grade that fails the ethics fails the whole.

We are deliberate about what we claim and what we do not. Our practice follows the spirit of widely-recognised guidance on publication and research integrity — on authorship, conflict of interest, data integrity, and correction of the record — stated here as our own commitments. We do not assert formal membership of a publishing-ethics organisation, a specific accreditation, or a citation metric we cannot demonstrate. What we offer instead is a transparent, dated, and correctable process you can examine for yourself, and the undertaking to be held to it as strictly as we hold the equipment we grade.

End of section
From the editorial desk

Have a concern about an assessment's integrity?

We would rather hear it than not. If you can document a conflict we missed, a source we mishandled, or a claim that does not hold, bring it to the editors. Acting on it is how the record stays worth trusting.

Contact the editorial team