Editorial Policies

Clear standards that uphold scientific integrity in preventive medicine publishing.

JPMC uses single-blind peer review with subject-matter experts in preventive medicine, public health, and care delivery. All reviews emphasize methodological rigor, transparency, and clinical relevance.

Editorial decisions are based on the quality of the science, alignment with scope, and potential public health impact.

Editors operate independently from any commercial or financial influence. Editorial decisions are not affected by author funding sources or APC payment.

We follow established publishing ethics and provide consistent guidance to maintain integrity and fairness across submissions.

• Compliance with COPE guidance and ethical publishing best practices
• IRB approval and informed consent required for human studies
• Conflict of interest disclosures for authors and reviewers
• Plagiarism screening for all submissions
• Clear reporting of funding sources and sponsor roles

JPMC encourages data sharing and requires data availability statements when appropriate. Transparency in methods and data strengthens reproducibility and public trust.

Authors should register clinical trials and provide protocol identifiers where applicable.

Authors may appeal editorial decisions with a clear, evidence-based rationale. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors to ensure fairness.

If errors are identified after publication, JPMC issues corrections or retractions according to publishing best practices.

• Initial editorial screening for scope and ethics
• Assignment to qualified reviewers in prevention fields
• Editorial synthesis of reviewer feedback
• Clear decision categories and revision guidance

JPMC follows COPE guidance for handling suspected misconduct, plagiarism, or unethical research practices.

Authorship disputes are managed according to international standards, and all contributors must approve the final manuscript.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive feedback and to maintain confidentiality. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed promptly.

Unprofessional or biased reviews are not accepted and may result in reviewer removal from the journal pool.

All accepted articles are published under CC BY 4.0 to maximize reuse and public access while preserving attribution. Licensing information is included in the final publication.

• Plagiarism screening prior to review
• Verification of ethics approvals and consent statements
• Checks for data availability and reporting transparency
• Review of conflicts of interest and funding disclosures

Authors are responsible for accuracy, originality, and full disclosure of conflicts, funding, and data limitations. Clear documentation supports fair review and reliable publication. Misrepresentation may lead to editorial action.

• Scope alignment with preventive medicine and care
• Methodological rigor and transparent reporting
• Ethical compliance and participant protections
• Public health relevance and practical impact

These criteria ensure consistency in editorial decisions and maintain the journal's reputation for high-quality prevention research. They also support transparency for authors and reviewers and improve trust in outcomes among global stakeholders and interdisciplinary audiences. This clarity reduces misunderstandings and supports consistent reviews.

JPMC supports authors, editors, and reviewers with timely guidance on scope, policies, and workflows. If you need clarification on requirements, data statements, or review timelines, contact the editorial office at [email protected]. We can provide templates, examples, and best-practice recommendations to help you move forward confidently. Our responses typically include next steps, resource links, and a clear point of contact. Early communication helps avoid delays, ensures consistent compliance, and improves the overall publication experience.