Research and Publication Ethics
Research Ethics
Research Involving Human Subjects
When reporting research involving human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data, authors must declare that the studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), as revised in 2013. According to point 23 of this declaration, approval from the local institutional review board (IRB) or another appropriate ethics committee must be obtained before starting the research to ensure it complies with national and international guidelines. At a minimum, a statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be included in the 'Institutional Review Board Statement' section of the article. Example of an ethical statement: "All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX Project identification code)."
For non-interventional studies (such as surveys, questionnaires, and social media research), all participants must be fully informed about the purpose of the research, the assurance of their anonymity, how their data will be used,
For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys, questionnaires, social media research), all participants must be fully informed about the purpose of the research, the assurance of their anonymity, how their data will be used, and any potential risks involved. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee must be obtained before conducting the study. If ethical approval is not required, authors must either provide an exemption from the ethics committee or cite the local or national legislation indicating that ethics approval is not required for this type of study. If a study has been granted an exemption, the name of the ethics committee that provided this exemption should be stated in the 'Institutional Review Board Statement' section, along with a full explanation of why ethical approval was not required.
Written informed consent for publication must be obtained from participating patients. Detailed data related to individual participants must be described, but private identifying information should not be included unless it is relevant to the research (e.g., photographs of participants’ faces showing a specific symptom). Patients' initials or other personal identifiers should not appear in any images. For manuscripts that include case details, personal information, and/or images of patients, authors must obtain signed informed consent for publication from the patients (or their relatives/guardians) before submitting to an SJHRP journal. Patient details must be anonymized as much as possible; specific age, ethnicity, or occupation should not be mentioned unless relevant to the conclusions. A template permission form is available for download. A blank version of the form used to obtain permission (without patient names or signatures) must be uploaded with your submission. Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.
For publishing in SJHRP journals, a consent, permission, or release form should include unlimited permission for publication in all formats (including print, electronic, and online), in sublicensed and reprinted versions (including translations and derived works), and in other works and products under an open access license. To respect patients' and individuals' privacy, do not send signed forms. The journal reserves the right to ask authors to provide signed forms if necessary.
If the study involves vulnerable groups, an additional review may be conducted. The submitted manuscript will be carefully examined by the editorial office, and authors may be asked to provide documentary evidence (such as blank consent forms and related discussion documents from the ethics board). Additionally, if studies categorize groups by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, disease, etc., the article must clearly explain why such categorization was necessary.
Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research
Editors will require that the potential benefits of any research causing harm to animals are significant compared to the costs endured by the animals. The procedures followed should not offend the majority of readers. Authors must ensure that their research adheres to the commonly accepted '3Rs':
Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement
Replacement: Use alternatives to animals whenever possible.
Reduction: Minimize the number of animals used in the research.
Refinement: Improve experimental conditions and procedures to reduce harm to animals.
Authors must include details on housing, husbandry, and pain management in their manuscripts. For further guidance, authors should refer to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, or the European Animal Research Association.
If no animal ethics committee is available to review applications, authors should be aware that the ethics of their research will be evaluated by reviewers and editors. Authors should provide a statement justifying the work from an ethical perspective, using the same utilitarian framework that ethics committees use. This statement may be required even if ethical approval has already been obtained.
Research Involving Cell Lines
Methods sections for submissions reporting on research involving cell lines should specify the origin of any cell lines used. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated, and references should be provided either to a published paper or to a commercial source. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including those gifted from another laboratory, details of institutional review board or ethics committee approval must be provided, along with confirmation of written informed consent if the cell line is of human origin.
Example of Ethical Statements:
- The HCT116 cell line was obtained from XXXX.
- The MLH1+ cell line was provided by XXXXX, Ltd.
- The DLD-1 cell line was obtained from Dr. XXXX.
- The DR-GFP and SA-GFP reporter plasmids were obtained from Dr. XXX, and the Rad51K133A expression vector was obtained from Dr. XXXX.
Research Involving Plants
Experimental research on plants (whether cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must adhere to institutional, national, or international guidelines. Authors are encouraged to comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and the origin of the material must be provided. For research involving rare and non-model plants (other than typical model plants like Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oryza sativa, etc.), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. These vouchers may be requested for review by future researchers to verify the identity of the material used in the study, especially if taxonomic changes occur. The vouchers should include details of the populations sampled, the collection site (with GPS coordinates), the date of collection, and document the part(s) used in the study where appropriate. For rare, threatened, or endangered species, this requirement can be waived, but the author must explain this in the cover letter.
Publication Ethics Statement
The editors of this journal enforce a rigorous peer-review process and adhere to strict ethical policies and standards to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific work. Unfortunately, issues such as plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation, and inappropriate authorship credit do occur. The editors of SJHRP take such ethical breaches very seriously and have a zero-tolerance policy for such cases.
Authors wishing to publish in SJHRP must comply with the following requirements:
- Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed in the paper before submission.
- Authors should accurately present their research findings and include an objective discussion of their significance.
- The data and methods used in the research must be presented in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the work.
- Raw data should preferably be publicly deposited before manuscript submission. At a minimum, authors must have raw data readily available for review by referees and editors upon request. Authors must ensure that raw data is retained in full for a reasonable time after publication.
- Simultaneous submission of manuscripts to more than one journal is not permitted.
The journal accepts exact translations of previously published work, provided all submissions comply with our translation policies.
If authors find errors or inaccuracies in their paper after publication, they must promptly inform the editors so appropriate actions can be taken.
Manuscripts should not contain information already published. If you include previously published figures or images, you must obtain permission from the copyright holder to publish under the CC-BY license.
Plagiarism, data fabrication, and image manipulation are not tolerated. Plagiarism is not acceptable in SJHRP submissions and includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from any source, including your own publications, without proper attribution.
Text reused from another source must be placed in quotes, and the original source must be cited. If a study's design, manuscript structure, or language is inspired by previous works, these must be explicitly cited.
All SJHRP submissions are checked for plagiarism using the industry-standard software iThenticate. If plagiarism is detected during peer review, the manuscript may be rejected. If detected after publication, an investigation will be conducted, and appropriate actions will be taken per our policies.
Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in a way that misinterprets the original information. Irregular manipulation includes: 1) introducing, enhancing, moving, or removing features from the original image; 2) grouping images that should be presented separately (e.g., from different parts of the same gel or from different gels); or 3) modifying contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or enhance information.
If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed during peer review, the manuscript may be rejected. If identified and confirmed after publication, the paper may be corrected or retracted.
Citation Policy
Authors must ensure that any material taken from other sources (including their own previously published work) is clearly cited and that appropriate permissions are obtained when necessary.
Authors should avoid excessive self-citation.
Authors should only cite references they have personally read and should not copy references from other publications.
Authors should avoid preferentially citing their own, their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.
Authors should not cite advertisements or promotional material.
Reviewer Suggestions
During submission process, please suggest three potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors are not obligated to contact these referees. Provide detailed contact information, including address, homepage, phone number, and email address. The proposed referees should not be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors in the last three years. Proposed reviewers should be from different institutions than the authors. You may also identify appropriate Editorial Board members of the journal as potential reviewers. Additionally, you may suggest reviewers from among the authors frequently cited in your paper.
Extensive English Editing
Authors are responsible for submitting their work in correct English. The Article Processing Charge (APC), if applicable, covers only minor English editing performed by native English speakers. The APC does not cover extensive English editing. If your paper requires substantial editing, it may be returned to you during the English editing stage, which could delay publication. To avoid this, you may have your work reviewed by an experienced English-speaking colleague or use a paid language-editing service before submission.
Conference Papers
Expanded and high-quality conference papers can be considered for publication as articles if they meet the following requirements: (1) the paper should be expanded to the size of a full research article; (2) the original conference paper should be cited and noted on the first page of the new paper; (3) if the authors do not hold the copyright to the original conference paper, they should obtain the appropriate permission from the copyright holder; (4) authors must disclose in their cover letter that the submission is based on a conference paper and include a statement detailing the changes made compared to the original conference paper.
Unpublished conference papers that do not meet these conditions are recommended for submission to the Proceedings Series journals.
Authorship
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND drafting the work or critically reviewing it for significant intellectual content; AND final approval of the version to be published; AND agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly investigated and resolved.
Individuals who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged.
Any changes to the author list must be approved by all authors, including those who have been removed. The corresponding author should serve as the primary contact between the editor and the other authors, keep co-authors informed, and involve them in major publication decisions. We reserve the right to request confirmation that all authors meet these authorship criteria.
Reviewers Recommendation/Exclusion
Authors can suggest potential reviewers for their manuscript. Journal editors will verify that there are no conflicts of interest before contacting these reviewers and will not consider those with competing interests. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest. During the initial submission process, authors can also specify names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration. The editorial team will honor these requests as long as they do not compromise the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.
Conflicts of Interest
According to The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Authors should avoid
entering into agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere
with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze
and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and
where they choose.”
All authors must disclose any relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include but are not limited to, financial interests (such as memberships, employment, consultancies, stock/share ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies, and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, and personal beliefs).
Declarations regarding conflicts of interest can also be collected using the SJHRP disclosure form (a form that should be created). The corresponding author must include a summary statement in the manuscript in a separate section titled “Conflicts of Interest,” placed just before the reference list. The statement should reflect all potential conflicts of interest disclosed in the form.
Examples of disclosures:
Conflicts of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stocks in Company Y. Author C has served as a consultant and expert witness for Company Z. Author D is the inventor of patent X.
If no conflicts exist, the authors should state:
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review
Upon submission, the academic editor (namely, the Editor-in-Chief for standard submissions, the Guest Editor for Special Issue submissions, or an Editorial Board member in situations of a conflict of interest or standard submissions upon the Editor-in-Chief's approval) will receive a notification to conduct an initial editorial assessment. This preliminary review phase involves evaluating the manuscript's alignment with the journal's scope and its overall scientific quality, including the pertinence of cited references and the accuracy of the methodology used. Based on this assessment, academic editors have the authority to either reject the manuscript outright, suggest revisions prior to peer review, or proceed to the peer review stage, recommending appropriate reviewers for a more detailed evaluation.
Peer-Review
After a manuscript successfully clears the preliminary screening, it will be forwarded to at least three independent experts for peer evaluation. In this single-blind review process, the reviewers are aware of the authors' identities. The comments made during the peer review are kept confidential and will be shared only with the explicit consent of the reviewer.
Editorial Decision and Amendment Process
Every submission to SJHRP journals, including articles, reviews, and communications, undergoes a peer review procedure, receiving at least two evaluations. The in-house editor will relay the academic editor's verdict, which can be one of the following:
Accepted with Minor Amendments:
The manuscript is tentatively approved subject to minor adjustments suggested by the reviewers. Authors have a five-day timeframe to implement these minor changes.
Reevaluation after Significant Amendments:
The manuscript's acceptance hinges on the implementation of significant revisions. Authors must either address each of the reviewers' critiques point by point or present a counterargument for any feedback that cannot be accommodated. Typically, a manuscript may undergo up to two rounds of significant revisions. Authors are prompted to resubmit their amended manuscript within an allocated timeframe, after which it will be reassessed by the reviewers for additional feedback. Should the anticipated revision period exceed two months, authors are advised to withdraw and resubmit their manuscript, mitigating undue time constraints and allowing for thorough revision.
Rejection with an Option for Resubmission:
Should the manuscript necessitate further experimentation to substantiate its conclusions, it will be rejected, with authors encouraged to resubmit once additional evidence has been gathered.
Reject:
The article has significant flaws and/or does not make an original, significant contribution. Resubmission to the journal is not offered.
All reviewer comments must be addressed in a point-by-point manner. If the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear and detailed response.
