Publication Ethics

ETHICAL STANDAR FOR EDITOR

1. Decision for publications

Editors of Medica Hospitalia: Journal of Clinical Medicine are responsible to make decision for publication. This decision is based on article validation and its contribution to authors and readers. Editors are guided by editorial board provision and comply with law such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may discuss with other editors or reviewers during decision making process.

2. Objective appraisal

Editors evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual contents without discrimination of religion, ethnicity, tribe, gender, nationality etc.

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staffs should not reveal any information regarding to submitted manuscript to any party other than authors, reviewers, reviewer candidates, and editorial board.

4. Conflict of interest

Article materials already submitted to Medica Hospitalia: Journal of Clinical Medicine and having not been published should not be used for personal research by editors without written permission from the authors. Idea or information gathered from the articles should be kept confidential and are not exploited for personal interest. Editors should refuse article review in case of conflict of interest caused by competitive, collaborative relations or other relations with authors, companies or institutions related to the manuscript.

5. Cooperation for investigation

Editors should take responsive action when ethical issues of the submitted manuscript or published articles are reported. Editors may contact authors and consider these issues. Editors may further communicate with institutions or relevant research bodies. When issues have been resolved, publication of revision, withdrawal, statement of concern or other notes need to be considered.

 

ETHICAL STANDARD FOR REVIEWER

1. Contributions toward editorial decisions

Reviewers help editors to make decision and authors to improve manuscript through editorial communication between reviewers and authors. Peer review is an important component of a formal scholarly communication and scientific approach.

2. Punctuality

When the assigned reviewers feel unqualified for reviewing a manuscript or unable to complete review in a timely fashion, they should immediately notify editors.

3. Confidentiality

Each manuscript submitted for review should be handled as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by editors.

4. Objectivity

Review should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism to authors is improper. Reviewer should clearly deliver their view along with supporting argument.

5. Completeness and originality of references

Reviewers should identify published articles have not been quoted by authors. A statement of previously published observation or argument should be accompanied with relevant quotation. Reviewers should notify editors for substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscripts and other published articles according to reviewer’s knowledge.

6. Conflict of interest

Unpublished article materials should not be used for reviewer’s personal research without providing written permission from the authors. Idea or information gathered from peer review process should be kept confidential and not be exploited for personal interest. Reviewers should refuse article review in case of conflict of interest caused by competitive, collaborative relations or other relations with authors, companies or institutions related to the manuscript.

 

ETHICAL STANDAR FOR AUTHORS

1. Writing standard

Authors should accurately present articles based on research having been conducted and provide objective discussion of the research significance. Research data should be accurately presented in the articles. Articles should be detailed along with adequate references enabling replication by others. Fabrication or inaccurate presentation is an ethical misconduct and unacceptable.

2. Access of research data

Authors may be asked to provide manuscript-related raw data and allow public access if necessary and store it in fair period after publication.

3. Originality and plagiarism

Plagiarism is a form of ethical misconduct in publication of scientific works and unacceptable. Authors should ensure all scientific works presented are original and properly cite other works and/or excerpts. There are several forms of plagiarism such as claiming other works as his/her own, copying or re-writing substantial works of others without citation, and claiming research findings conducted by others. Self-plagiarism or oto plagiarism is a form of plagiarism. Oto plagiarism is quoting research findings or excerpt of his/her own published work without citing the sources.

4. Provision of manuscript submission

Authors should not publish same article in more than one journal. Submitting same article in more than one journal is an ethical misconduct in publication of scientific works and unacceptable.

5. Citation of references

Proper acknowledgement of other works should always be conducted. Authors should mention published articles influencing his/her works. Information gathered in personal, such during conversation, correspondence or discussion with third party, should never be used or reported without written permission from the sources of information.

6. Authorship

Authors are those giving significant contribution of the concept, design, execution or interpretation of excerpt in the articles. All parties already giving significant contribution are included as co-author. The writers of correspondence ensure all co-authors are already included in the manuscript, and all co-authors have read and approved the final work and submission for publication.

7. Fallaciousness in published excerpts

When authors find significant fallaciousness or inaccuracy in their published work, they should immediately notify editors and cooperate with editors for withdrawal or revision. If editors are notified by third parties regarding significant fallaciousness of published works, authors should withdraw or rectify their manuscript or provide evidence to editors regarding the accurate version.

 

NOTES FOR USAGE OF GENERATIVE AI IN SCIENTIFIC WRITING

This policy establishes guidelines for the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), including Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI-assisted tools, in scholarly publishing. The use of these tools must be consistent with the principles of academic integrity, transparency, originality, confidentiality, and research ethics.

Authors, peer reviewers, and editors are responsible for ensuring that AI is used appropriately within their respective roles. Generative AI may support specific tasks where permitted, but it must not replace human judgment, intellectual contributions, or accountability for scholarly work. All parties must adhere to the following guidelines to maintain the quality, credibility, and integrity of the scholarly publication process.

1. Guidelines for Authors

Permitted Use: Authors may use Generative AI and AI-assisted tools to improve language, grammar, clarity, organization, and wording. However, AI must not replace authors' intellectual contributions, including developing arguments, interpreting findings, and ensuring scientific accuracy.

Disclosure: Authors must disclose whether and how Generative AI was used during manuscript preparation at the initial submission. The disclosure must describe the nature of its use, particularly for generating or rewriting text.

Authors' Responsibility: Authors remain fully responsible for the manuscript's accuracy, originality, and scientific integrity. All AI-assisted facts, citations, data, and claims must be verified before submission.

Research Integrity: AI must not be used to fabricate, falsify, or deceptively alter data, findings, maps, spatial analyses, figures, tables, or other research evidence. Any AI-assisted data processing or analysis must be transparently disclosed, and authors remain accountable for the results.

Authorship: Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors or contributors because they cannot assume responsibility for the work.

Visual Content: The use of AI to generate or modify figures and other visual materials must be disclosed. Such materials must accurately represent the research, and additional journal-specific requirements may apply

2. Guidelines for Peer Reviewer

Confidentiality: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, data, figures, or any other confidential review materials to Generative AI tools.

Independent Assessment: Peer review evaluations and reports must reflect reviewers' own expertise and judgment and must not be generated by AI.

Language Assistance: AI may be used solely to improve the language of reviewers' own comments, provided that no manuscript content is entered into the tool.

Reporting Concerns: Suspected undisclosed AI use, fabricated references, or manipulated content must be reported confidentially to the editor.

3. Guidelines for Editors

Confidentiality: Editors must protect the confidentiality of submissions, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence and must not enter these materials into Generative AI tools.

Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions, including initial screening, reviewer assessment, and acceptance or rejection, must be made by humans and must not be delegated to AI.

Administrative Assistance: Secure AI-assisted tools may support administrative tasks, such as similarity screening and formatting checks, provided that confidentiality is maintained. AI-detection results must never serve as the sole basis for editorial decisions.

Handling Suspected Misconduct: Suspected AI misuse must be handled fairly and in accordance with COPE guidelines, allowing authors an opportunity to respond before any action is taken.