Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Hematology and Clinical Research (JHCR) maintains a rigorous ethics and malpractice framework to protect the scholarly record and the communities who rely upon it—clinicians, laboratorians, transfusion specialists, and researchers. The legacy JHCR site explicitly states that the journal’s ethics and malpractice statement is mainly based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. This page consolidates that commitment into clear responsibilities and processes for authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

This statement applies to submissions in all article types (original articles, reviews, brief reports, case reports, editorials, and special issues), and governs preprints, revisions, accepted manuscripts, and versions of record.

Core Ethical Principles

Integrity of the record: We correct, retract, or otherwise update the record where necessary and maintain persistent notices. Our CrossRef/Crossmark policies support authoritative versioning.
Fair, unbiased evaluation: Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to hematology—not on the identity or affiliations of the authors.
Transparency: The site clusters public policies (Peer Review, Plagiarism, Digital Archiving, Open Access, Grievances, Waiver, Authorship Criteria) for accountability.
Open access & licensing: Articles are published under CC BY 4.0 for wide reuse with attribution. Ethical conduct remains mandatory under openness. (See OA/Licensing pages.)

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship should reflect substantial scholarly contributions to the conception/design, acquisition/analysis/interpretation of data, drafting or critical revision, and final approval of the version to be published, with accountability for all aspects of the work. Changes to authorship after submission require written approval from all authors.

To improve transparency, we encourage a CRediT taxonomy statement in the manuscript describing author roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Supervision, Funding acquisition).

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest and Funding

All authors, editors, and reviewers must declare financial and non-financial interests (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equipment or reagent gifts, intellectual property, personal relationships). Manuscripts must include a Funding statement and a Competing Interests statement. If no conflicts exist, state, “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Research Ethics (Human/Animal/Clinical)

Human subjects: Studies must state IRB/IEC approval and informed consent; case reports require consent for publication (and image release where applicable).
Animal research: Report oversight committee approval and adherence to national/international guidelines; describe humane endpoints and housing conditions.
Clinical trials: Include trial registration (e.g., CTRI, ClinicalTrials.gov) and specify protocol identifiers in the manuscript.
Data protection: Follow privacy expectations outlined in our Privacy Statement for personal data handling in manuscripts and peer review.

Data Integrity, Availability, and Reproducibility

Authors must present data accurately and retain primary data for at least the period required by their institution or funder. Upon reasonable request during peer review, editors may ask for de-identified data, images, or analysis code to verify results. Appropriate image integrity practices are required (no selective enhancement, splicing without demarcation, or duplication).

Data availability: We encourage data deposition in subject or institutional repositories (where feasible) and require a Data Availability Statement in the article describing where and how data can be accessed.

Plagiarism, Redundancy, and Text Recycling

JHCR employs similarity checking (e.g., iThenticate) at multiple stages. The legacy policy states that plagiarism is both unethical and checked by the Quality Control Team, and it outlines thresholds for editorial action.

Unacceptable practices: verbatim copying without quotation and citation; close paraphrasing; duplicate submission; salami slicing; undisclosed translation of prior works.
Editorial actions: request revision with proper citation; rejection; notification to institutions where serious misconduct is detected; and public notices for post-publication cases (e.g., retractions or expressions of concern).

Peer Review Ethics

The journal uses a structured peer-review process, focusing on the validity, significance, and originality of the work rather than author identity or affiliation. The legacy Peer Review Policy explains initial checks by editors and external reviews by at least two independent reviewers.

Role	Ethical Responsibilities
Editors	Ensure fair evaluation; avoid handling papers where conflicts exist; maintain confidentiality; decide based on reviewer reports and journal scope.
Reviewers	Treat manuscripts as confidential; declare conflicts; provide objective, evidence-backed critiques; avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage.
Authors	Respond to critiques with data and revisions; refrain from attempts to identify reviewers; avoid coercive citation practices.

For Special Issues, guest editors must follow the journal’s Statement of Editorial Policy and Code of Ethics; editorial independence and conflict checks apply equally.

Allegations of Misconduct and Investigations

Misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts, manipulation of authorship, citation manipulation, or improper IRB/ethics approval. Suspicions may be raised by reviewers, editors, readers, or third parties via the Grievances Policy, which enumerates complaint categories (plagiarism, authorship issues, bias, delays, etc.).

Handling process (overview)

Receipt & triage: The ethics editor acknowledges the complaint and reviews available evidence (similarity report, images, timeline).
Author contact: Corresponding author is asked for an explanation and original data within a defined period (typically 7–14 days).
Evaluation: Editors evaluate responses; external experts may be consulted for technical assessment.
Outcome: Correction, addendum, expression of concern, or retraction/withdrawal according to severity and evidence; institutions may be notified for serious cases.
Record-keeping: Decisions and communications are archived to preserve an audit trail.

Post-Publication Corrections, Retractions, and Withdrawals

We safeguard the literature via public notices and consistent metadata updates (DOIs/Crossmark). The legacy CrossRef policy and Crossmark policy emphasize authoritative versions and alerting readers to changes.

The Withdrawal Policy details conditions under which manuscripts may be withdrawn and lists fee tiers depending on stage (e.g., after plagiarism check, after peer review). It also lists examples of ethical breaches triggering action.

Corrections (errata/corrigenda) address honest errors without invalidating results.
Expressions of Concern are issued when evidence is inconclusive but potential risk to the record exists.
Retractions/Withdrawals are applied for proven serious issues (e.g., unreliable data, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication), with transparent notices that remain accessible and linked to the original record.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may challenge editorial decisions, peer-review conduct, or processing delays. The Grievances Policy provides complaint categories and a pathway for escalation. Appeals should provide detailed rationale and supporting evidence; an independent editor will review where feasible.

Publishing Standards and Transparency

Open Access and License: All content is under CC BY 4.0; rights are clearly indicated on article pages and policy clusters.
Indexing and discoverability: The journal exposes DOIs and maintains policy menus across article pages and archives, supporting harvesting and library listing.
Digital archiving: The journal maintains preservation practices as described on the Digital Archiving Policy page.
APCs and waivers: Charges are due after acceptance with a waiver pathway on a case-by-case basis. Ethical decisions are independent of ability to pay.

Editorial Responsibilities

Maintain editorial independence; avoid conflicts; recuse where necessary.
Ensure a timely, constructive review process consistent with the peer review policy.
Protect reviewer and author confidentiality; uphold double-blind practices where applicable.
Pursue suspected misconduct with diligence; coordinate with institutions when appropriate.
Apply corrections/retractions consistently and maintain permanent notices via Crossref/Crossmark.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Assess manuscripts objectively, with clear evidence and relevant citations.
Declare conflicts and decline reviews where conflicts exist.
Keep manuscripts confidential; do not use information for personal advantage.
Report concerns about data integrity, ethics approvals, plagiarism, or undisclosed conflicts.

Author Responsibilities

Submit original, accurate, and complete reports of research.
Disclose conflicts, funding, and approvals; provide clinical trial registration where applicable.
Avoid duplicate submission and redundant publication; cite related work transparently.
Respond to editorial and reviewer comments with data-driven revisions.
Cooperate with post-publication queries; provide data/records upon request.

Publication Malpractice Examples and Editorial Actions

Issue	Examples	Potential Actions
Plagiarism / Text Recycling	Uncited duplication; translation plagiarism; figure reuse without permission.	Request revision; reject; retract/withdraw; notify institutions and funders.
Data Fabrication / Falsification	Invented patients; altered gel images; statistical irregularities without data.	Reject; retract; notify institutions; expression of concern pending investigation.
Authorship Misconduct	Gift, guest, or ghost authorship; unjustified removal/addition post-acceptance.	Require signed statements; reject; publish notice of correction; institutional contact.
Peer Review Manipulation	Faked reviewer identities; suggested reviewer emails controlled by authors.	Immediate rejection; editorial audit; notification to institutions and indexers.
Ethics Approval / Consent Failures	Missing IRB/IEC approval; absent consent for clinical images.	Reject or retract; remove images; require corrigenda with explicit consent statements.
Duplicate/Concurrent Submission	Submitting same work to multiple journals; salami slicing of datasets.	Reject; ban for a period; notify other journals when appropriate.

Editorial Process Map (Summary)

Initial checks: scope, formatting, and similarity screening by editors/QC.
External review: at least two independent reviewers; editors synthesize reports and make decision.
Decision: accept, minor/major revision, or reject, with reasons and guidance.
Post-acceptance: production, DOI assignment/Crossref registration, and publication with license metadata; Crossmark enabled for updates.
Post-publication oversight: responses to concerns via Grievances, corrections/retractions as needed.

FAQs

What evidence do you require to investigate a concern?

Send a concise description, URLs/DOIs, and any supporting documents (e.g., similarity reports, image mark-ups). We acknowledge receipt and explain next steps.

Are APCs linked to acceptance?

No. Decisions are independent of APC ability to pay; fees are requested only after acceptance. A waiver mechanism exists for eligible cases.

Do you update indexers when a paper changes?

Yes. We propagate updates via DOI metadata and Crossmark to reflect corrections/retractions for harvesters and libraries.

Where can I view related public policies?

See the policy cluster (Peer Review, Plagiarism, Digital Archiving, Open Access, Grievances, Authorship Criteria) linked from article and issue pages.

Contact

Editorial Office – Journal of Hematology and Clinical Research (JHCR)
Heighten Science Publications Inc.
Website: https://www.hematologyresjournal.com/
Email: [email protected]