Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Editorial Board of Journal and HM Publishers are committed to the highest academic, professional, legal, and ethical standards in publishing work in this journal. To this end, we have adopted a set of guidelines, to which all submitting authors, reviewers and editors are expected to adhere, to assure the integrity and ethical publishing. We also adopt the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to deal with publication ethics and malpractice policies.

Here are some general ethical guidelines that Journal adopts and recommends for its authors, reviewers and editors.

Ethical guidelines for Journal authors

We expect all authors submitting to Journal to adhere to the following ethical guidelines:

• All authors must warrant that their article is their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and cannot be construed as plagiarizing any other published work, including their own previously published work.
• In case copyrighted materials are to be reproduced, it is the responsibility of the authors to obtain permission to reproduce the copyrighted materials. Authors must also include the copyright permission letter while submitting such paper.
• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All authors named on the paper are equally held accountable for the content of a submitted manuscript or published paper.
• Authors must not submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Authors should not submit previously published work, nor work which is based in substance on previously published work, either in part or whole.
• Authors must appropriately cite all relevant works. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work unless fully cited, and with the permission of that third party.
• Authors must make available all necessary formal and documented ethical approval from an appropriate research ethics committee, including evidence of anonymization and informed consent from the client(s) or patient(s) studied, if appropriate.
• Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
• Authors must pay particular attention to making their language non-discriminatory in any way. They should avoid sexist and racist terms and adhere to the basic ethical principle of no harm.
• Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest – be it professional or financial – which could be held to arise with respect to the article.
• Authors must disclose all sources of financial support for the research reported in the paper.
• When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the authors’ obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  
  

  Declaration of competing interest

  Corresponding authors, on behalf of all the authors of a submission, must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. All authors, including those without competing interests to declare, should provide the relevant information to the corresponding author (which, where relevant, may specify they have nothing to declare).

  Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

  The below guidance only refers to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of the research process.

  Where authors use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, authors should only use these technologies to improve readability and language. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author, or be cited as an author. 

  Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by following the instructions below. A statement will appear in the published work. Please note that authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

  Disclosure instructions

  Authors must disclose the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process by adding a statement at the end of their manuscript in the core manuscript file, before the References list. The statement should be placed in a new section entitled 'Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process'

  Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication

  This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

  Use of inclusive language

  Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. Content should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader; contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition; and use inclusive language throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, stereotypes, slang, reference to dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions. We advise to seek gender neutrality by using plural nouns ("clinicians, patients/clients") as default/wherever possible to avoid using "he, she," or "he/she." We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition unless they are relevant and valid. When coding terminology is used, we recommend to avoid offensive or exclusionary terms such as "master", "slave", "blacklist" and "whitelist". We suggest using alternatives that are more appropriate and (self-) explanatory such as "primary", "secondary", "blocklist" and "allowlist". These guidelines are meant as a point of reference to help identify appropriate language but are by no means exhaustive or definitive.

  Author contributions

  For transparency, we require corresponding authors to provide co-author contributions to the manuscript using the relevant CRediT roles. The CRediT taxonomy includes 14 different roles describing each contributor's specific contribution to the scholarly output. The roles are: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review & editing. Note that not all roles may apply to every manuscript, and authors may have contributed through multiple roles. More details and an example.

  Changes to authorship

  Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor. To request such a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in author list and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed.

  Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. While the Editor considers the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online issue, any requests approved by the Editor will result in a corrigendum.

  Article Transfer Service

  This journal uses the HM Journal Article Transfer Service to find the best home for your manuscript. This means that if an editor feels your manuscript is more suitable for an alternative journal, you might be asked to consider transferring the manuscript to such a journal. The recommendation might be provided by a Journal Editor. If you agree, your manuscript will be transferred to other HM Journal, though you will have the opportunity to make changes to the manuscript before the submission is complete. Please note that your manuscript will be independently reviewed by the new journal.

Ethical guidelines for Journal peer reviewers

We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for Journal articles they have agreed to review:

• Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript, and should judge each on its merits. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
• Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
• Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse her- or himself from the review process.
• Reviewers should assist the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
• Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner, informing the editor if this is not possible.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they are aware.
• Journal strongly recommends that reviewers also adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Ethical guidelines for Journal editors

We ask all journal editors to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for Journal articles that are worthy of peer review:

• Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Journal editors must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
• Journal editors may reject a submitted manuscript without resort to formal peer review if they consider the manuscript to be inappropriate for the journal and outside its scope.
• If a journal editor receives a claim that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere or has already been published, then he or she has a duty to investigate the matter with Journal.
• Journal editors should make all reasonable effort to process submitted manuscripts in an efficient and timely manner.
• Journal editors should arrange for the responsibility of the peer review of any original research article authored by themselves to be delegated to a member of the editorial or advisory board as appropriate.
• Journal editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
• If a journal editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of an article published in the journal are erroneous, then, in consultation with Journal, the journal editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate corrigendum or erratum.

 

Funding source