Plagiarism Check

The Journal of Cardiometabolic Research and Public Health (JCRPH) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and scholarly rigor. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process and a mandatory plagiarism check to ensure the quality, validity, and credibility of published research.

1. Plagiarism Check

Plagiarism detection is a core element of JCRPH’s publication ethics. Every manuscript submitted to the journal is screened using Turnitin to assess originality and ensure proper attribution of sources. Manuscripts must not exceed a 20% similarity index.

Submissions that exceed this threshold, or that demonstrate plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation practices, will be returned for correction or rejected outright, depending on the severity. Authors bear full responsibility for ensuring the originality and integrity of their work and for properly citing all sources.

2. Peer Review Process

JCRPH employs a double-blind review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed to maintain impartiality and objectivity. The purpose of peer review is to:

  • Assess the originality, methodological rigor, relevance, and clarity of manuscripts.
  • Provide constructive feedback to enhance the quality and impact of the research.
  • Ensure that published work contributes meaningfully to the fields of cardiometabolic health, public health, and related interdisciplinary areas.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, scholarly experience, and ethical conduct. They are expected to:

  • Evaluate manuscripts impartially and objectively.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content of submissions.
  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to reviewing.
  • Report any suspected ethical misconduct or irregularities to the editorial office.

4. Editorial Decisions

Following review, manuscripts may be:

  • Accepted without revision (rare)
  • Accepted with minor or major revisions, with mandatory responses to reviewer comments
  • Rejected for lack of originality, methodological flaws, ethical concerns, or insufficient scholarly contribution

5. Timelines and Transparency

JCRPH aims to provide timely feedback while maintaining rigorous review standards. Authors are expected to respond professionally and transparently to reviewer comments and requested revisions.

6. Ethical Standards

Both editors and reviewers adhere to international ethical guidelines, ensuring:

  • Fair and unbiased assessment regardless of race, gender, nationality, or institutional affiliation
  • Respect for confidentiality and intellectual property
  • Vigilance in detecting ethical breaches, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, and data falsification