Communicate with Respect
At Program Review Hub, we believe that mutual respect is essential for fostering trust and delivering quality services to the evaluation community. We expect our team to act professionally and respectfully in all interactions with evaluators, experts, organizations, and users of our platform. Similarly, we ask for the same standards of conduct from the wider community in their dealings with our staff.
We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, harassment, bullying, or discrimination directed at Program Review Hub team members. In cases of serious misconduct, we reserve the right to involve employers or local authorities when necessary and may choose to suspend interactions or partnerships with individuals who repeatedly or significantly breach this policy.
Respectful communication is the foundation of a thriving professional community, and we are committed to upholding this standard in all our engagements.
Ethical responsibilities of authors
At Program Review Hub, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and transparency in evaluation-related submissions. Authors are expected to adhere to ethical principles that foster trust in the evaluation community and uphold the credibility of their work. The following guidelines outline the ethical responsibilities of authors contributing to our platform:
General Guidelines
Original Work: Submissions must be original and not published elsewhere in any form or language, unless explicitly justified as part of a broader dissemination effort (e.g., translations or expansions of prior work). Transparency about reused material is required to avoid concerns of text recycling or self-plagiarism.
Simultaneous Submissions: Manuscripts should not be under consideration by multiple publications simultaneously.
Clarity and Honesty: Results should be presented clearly, accurately, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation, including image-based modifications.
Proper Acknowledgment: Authors must not present others’ data, text, or theories as their own (plagiarism). Proper citations and acknowledgments are required for material closely paraphrased, summarized, or quoted verbatim, including obtaining permissions for copyrighted content.
Discipline-Specific and Ethical Considerations
Adhere to discipline-specific standards for data collection, processing, and presentation.
Avoid excessive or inappropriate self-citation or coordinated self-citation among groups.
Clearly identify any potential misuse of research that could pose public health or security risks, such as weaponization or harmful applications of findings.
Authorship and Contributions
Authors should ensure the correct listing and order of contributors at the time of submission. Changes to authorship during the review process are discouraged and must be justified in exceptional cases. No changes to authorship are allowed after acceptance.
Data and Documentation
Authors must be prepared to provide raw data, records, or other relevant documentation upon request to verify the validity of their findings. Confidential or proprietary information is exempt from this requirement.
Addressing Errors
Authors are obligated to promptly correct any significant errors identified in their published work. Depending on the severity, corrections may include errata, expressions of concern, or retractions. Transparency is essential in detailing the nature of the error and its impact on the publication.
Reviewer Suggestions and Exclusions
Authors may suggest potential reviewers or request exclusions when submitting manuscripts. Suggested reviewers must be independent of the work and not affiliated with the authors. Provide institutional email addresses or verifiable information, such as professional profiles, for each suggested reviewer. While we value suggestions, final reviewer selection rests with Program Review Hub to ensure impartiality.
Plagiarism Screening and Investigations
Submissions may be screened for plagiarism using specialized software. In cases of suspected misconduct or ethical breaches, investigations will follow established COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines. Depending on the findings, actions may include:
Rejection of the manuscript under review.
Errata, expressions of concern, or retractions for published works, with clear explanations provided.
Informing the author’s institution of the breach.
Commitment to Ethical Standards
Authors are responsible for ensuring their submissions meet ethical and legal standards, including copyright compliance. By maintaining these ethical responsibilities, Program Review Hub fosters a professional and trustworthy environment for sharing knowledge in the evaluation community.
For further clarification or assistance, authors are encouraged to contact the Editor-in-Chief.
Competing Interests
At Program Review Hub, we emphasize transparency and integrity in all evaluation-related submissions. Contributors are required to disclose any interests—financial or non-financial—that may directly or indirectly influence the content of their submissions. Disclosures should include interests within the past three years and beyond if they could reasonably be perceived as impacting the work submitted. This policy ensures a transparent process and allows users to evaluate potential biases independently.
Disclosing competing interests does not imply any impropriety in financial or other relationships. Instead, it provides context for a balanced interpretation of the submitted work. Interests that must be disclosed include, but are not limited to, the following:
Financial Interests
Funding: Grants or financial support (including salaries, equipment, or travel reimbursement) provided by organizations that may benefit or lose financially from the publication. Please include the funding organization and grant numbers.
Employment: Current, recent, or anticipated employment with any organization that may have a financial stake in the publication outcome.
Investments: Stocks, shares, consultation fees, or patents that may be affected by the publication.
Non-Financial Interests
Authors should also disclose any non-financial interests that may influence their work. Examples include:
Positions on editorial or advisory boards, or other management roles.
Personal relationships, mentoring roles, or professional affiliations that could create bias.
Disclosure Statements
All submissions must include a “Declarations” section before the reference list summarizing any relevant disclosures. This should address the following categories where applicable:
Funding
Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests
Ethics Approval
Consent
Data and/or Code Availability
Authors’ Contributions
Funding Statement
Provide funding details clearly, using templates such as:
“This work was supported by [Organization] under Grant No. [Number].”
“No funds, grants, or other financial support was received for this study.”
Conflicts of Interest Statement
Financial interests: Specify any financial relationships or declare none (e.g., “The authors declare no financial interests.”).
Non-financial interests: Disclose relevant roles or declare none (e.g., “The authors declare no non-financial interests.”).
Templates for No Disclosures
“The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.”
“The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to this work.”
Responsibilities and Enforcement
Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of disclosure statements. The Program Review Hub team reserves the right to reject submissions that fail to meet these guidelines. If needed, please consult the Editor-in-Chief for clarity regarding specific requirements.
By adhering to these principles, Program Review Hub aims to uphold the highest standards of professional integrity and foster trust within the evaluation community.
Citations
At Program Review Hub, accurate and appropriate citation practices are essential to maintain the integrity and quality of evaluation-related publications. Whether submitting research articles, opinion pieces, reviews, or commentaries, authors are expected to adhere to the following guidelines:
General Guidelines
Support for Claims: All statements in the manuscript that rely on external information—beyond the authors’ own findings, ideas, or general knowledge—must include accurate and relevant citations.
Original Sources: Authors should cite the original work rather than secondary sources or reviews that summarize or reference the original material.
Accuracy: Ensure that citations are precise and directly support the claims made in the manuscript. Misrepresenting the content of cited works is strictly prohibited.
First-Hand Citations: Authors must only cite works they have personally read and should avoid citing sources indirectly referenced in other works.
Unacceptable Practices
Excessive Self-Citation: Authors should avoid disproportionately citing their own works or those of collaborators, peers, or affiliated institutions.
Citation Manipulation: Practices such as unnecessary citations of articles within Program Review Hub or coordinated efforts to artificially increase citation metrics will not be tolerated.
Geographic Bias: Avoid limiting citations to sources from a single country or region to ensure a diverse and balanced representation of global research.
Over-Citation: Refrain from citing an excessive number of sources to support a single point.
Appropriate Sources
Peer-Reviewed Work: Where possible, authors should prioritize citing peer-reviewed sources to uphold the credibility of their references.
Avoid Advertisements: Citations from advertisements or promotional materials are unacceptable.
Consequences of Citation Misconduct
Instances of citation manipulation or misuse may lead to:
Rejection of the manuscript.
Notification of the authors’ institutions regarding the ethical breach.
Reporting inappropriate behavior by peer reviewers or editors encouraging such practices.
By adhering to these citation guidelines, authors contribute to the credibility, transparency, and professionalism of Program Review Hub and the broader evaluation community. For further assistance, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial team.
