PUBLICATION ETHICS

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement — JHSCC

Journal of Health Sciences and Collaborative Care, published by PT Mahakarya Citra Utama Group, requires honest reporting, fair assessment, confidentiality, and editorial independence. These requirements apply to authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

Authors
Submit original work with accurate data and traceable references. Declare related publications and avoid concurrent submission, plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, misleading images, and citation manipulation. All authors must make substantive contributions, participate in drafting or critical revision, approve the final version, and accept accountability. Acknowledge contributors who do not meet authorship requirements; do not use gift or ghost authorship. Changes in authorship require an explanation and agreement from affected authors before editorial approval. AI tools cannot be listed as authors; relevant use must be disclosed and authors remain responsible for the work.

Research participants and data
Report ethical approval or a documented exemption and informed consent where applicable. Protect personal information and obtain consent for publication of identifiable case details. Animal studies must document appropriate ethical oversight. Disclose funding, the funder’s role, conflicts of interest, trial registration where applicable, and data availability, including justified restrictions protecting participants. Editors may request supporting data or documentation through an appropriate confidential process.

Editors and reviewers
Editors assess scope, scientific quality, methods, ethics, and reporting independently of commercial interests or author fees. Reviewers provide evidence-based, constructive assessments within agreed deadlines and protect unpublished material. Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves where impartiality is compromised. Submissions involving an editor or editorial-board member must be handled by an independent editor without the author’s involvement in the decision. Manuscripts and review material must not be shared with third parties or external AI services without authorisation.

Publisher
The publisher supports independent editorial decisions, transparent fees and policies, secure journal operation, and preservation of the scholarly record. Acceptance cannot be purchased and publication is not guaranteed.

Complaints, appeals, and allegations
Send concerns to the Editorial Office using the Contact page, identifying the article or submission and providing specific evidence. Concerns are assessed confidentially and without treating an allegation as proof. The handling editor seeks relevant explanations and documents decisions; a conflicted editor must recuse themselves. Where an institutional investigation is necessary, the editor may contact the relevant institution with appropriate confidentiality. Authors may appeal by explaining the alleged procedural or substantive error and providing supporting evidence; an independent editorial assessment should address the concern.

COPE Guidelines
The journal uses publicly available Committee on Publication Ethics guidance to inform case-specific decisions. Reference to COPE guidance does not assert COPE membership or accreditation. Editors should consult current COPE guidance on allegations, peer review, conflicts, authorship, and post-publication action, rather than apply a similarity score as a misconduct verdict.
COPE guidance: https://publicationethics.org/
Retraction guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/retraction-guidelines

Retraction and Correction Policy
Readers and authors should report substantive errors promptly. The editor evaluates the evidence and records the decision. Errors that can be remedied without invalidating the main findings require a linked correction identifying the change. Serious unreliability or ethical concerns may require an expression of concern during investigation or a retraction. Notices identify the affected work, explain the reason objectively, and remain freely accessible. Original records are retained and linked to notices, with a clear status; content is not silently replaced or deleted. Any exceptional removal requires a separately justified legal or privacy process.

Post-publication discussion
Evidence-based critiques are considered by the editor, and authors may be invited to respond. Scientific disagreement alone is not misconduct. Corrections and decisions are documented to preserve an accountable scholarly record.