Publication Ethics

• Authorship and Contributorship
• Use of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Technology
• Complaints and Appeals
• Allegations of Research Misconduct
• Conflicts of Interest
• Data Sharing and Reproducibility
• Journal Archiving Policy
• Post-publication
• Corrections and Retractions
• Withdrawal of Manuscripts
• Ethical Oversight

 

 

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Our editorial and ethical policies are guided by the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These policies are subject to periodic review and updates in accordance with evolving standards in scholarly publishing. For more information, please visit: https://publicationethics.org

Below are our policies based on the core components of COPE best practices:

---

Authorship and Contributorship

Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) emphasizes transparency, integrity, and fairness in determining authorship of scholarly work. Authorship must reflect a significant and accountable intellectual contribution to the manuscript's content.

Authorship Criteria

JCHS assumes that all listed authors on a submitted manuscript:

• Have read and approved the full content of the submitted manuscript;
• Have given explicit consent to submit the manuscript to the journal;
• Have obtained permission or authorization (tacit or explicit) from the appropriate authorities of the institution or organization where the research was conducted.

Submission to JCHS reflects the collective and individual responsibility of all authors for the originality, integrity, and accuracy of the scientific content. While JCHS does not prescribe the specific types of contributions that qualify for authorship, it encourages adherence to accepted disciplinary standards. All individuals listed as authors must meet all four of the following criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
2. Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published;
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All criteria must be met collectively. Individuals who contribute to only one or two aspects (e.g., data collection or funding acquisition) are not eligible for authorship but may be acknowledged as contributors.

Non-Author Contributors

Individuals or institutions that contributed significantly to the research but do not meet the four authorship criteria (e.g., laboratory technicians, language editors, or statistical analysts) should be explicitly acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section, with their permission.

Corresponding Author

One author is assigned as Corresponding Author and acts on behalf of all co-authors and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed. The corresponding author is responsible for all communications with the journal throughout the submission, peer review, and publication process, and for ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript. The corresponding author also manages responses to any post-publication inquiries.

Changes to Authorship

JCHS strongly advises authors to ensure that the author list, including the corresponding author and the order of authorship, is accurate and complete at the time of initial submission. This policy aims to ensure transparency, uphold scientific integrity, and prevent conflicts of interest or misuse of academic credit. Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved internally may be referred to the authors’ affiliated institutions and handled according to COPE guidelines.

Requests for authorship changes (including addition, removal, or reordering of authors) must be accompanied by:

1. A written statement signed by all currently listed authors and any proposed new authors;
2. A complete and valid explanation for the change;
3. Written consent from all involved parties, including those remaining, being added, or removed.

Requests lacking full documentation or justified reasons will be denied by the Editor.

Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, any requests to modify the authorship—including adding, removing, or reordering authors, or changing the corresponding author—will not be permitted under any circumstances. In rare and exceptional circumstances, changes during the revision stage may be considered only if accompanied by a strong rationale and sufficient supporting documentation. The final decision rests entirely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors are reminded that author names will be published exactly as they appear in the accepted manuscript. Therefore, it is crucial that all names are correctly spelled, complete, and current, including affiliations and correspondence details.

Authorship Disputes

In the event of authorship disputes (e.g., disagreements over author order or eligibility), the journal will refer to COPE guidelines and may request mediation by the relevant affiliated institutions. The journal reserves the right to withdraw a manuscript from the editorial process—or retract a published article—if the authorship issue remains unresolved.

Author Contributions Statement

Each submitted manuscript must include an Author Contributions Statement that clearly specifies the roles of each author. JCHS encourages the use of the CRediT taxonomy (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), such as:

• Conceptualization
• Methodology
• Formal Analysis
• Writing – Original Draft
• Writing – review & editing
• Supervision, etc.

More information is available at https://credit.niso.org

Back to top

---

Use of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Technology

JCHS acknowledges the potential role of AI-assisted tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL) in supporting academic writing and editing. However, their use must be ethical and transparent, subject to the following conditions:

1. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Only individuals who fulfill all authorship criteria, as defined above, may be credited as authors. AI technologies lack legal responsibility and scientific accountability.
2. The use of AI in drafting, editing, or analyzing content must be clearly disclosed in the Methods section or Declaration section of the manuscript. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of content generated with AI assistance. For details, refer to the journal's Declaration at: https://ukinstitute.org/journals/2/jchs/declaration 
3. Any data generated using AI or submitted as input must be critically evaluated and should never replace human scientific judgment or ethical considerations.
4. The use of AI-generated images should be avoided unless the authors can attribute the content and are confident that copyright is respected. These images must be clearly indicated as AI-generated in the captions.
5. The editorial team reserves the right to reject or request revisions for manuscripts containing AI-generated content that lacks transparency or violates scientific integrity (e.g., plagiarism or fabricated citations).

For more details, please see our AI usage policy at: https://ukinstitute.org/ai/.

Back to top

---

Complaints and Appeals

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and professional editorial process. As part of this commitment, we provide a formal mechanism for addressing complaints and appeals related to the scholarly publication process.

Scope of Complaints and Appeals

Complaints and appeals may be submitted by authors, reviewers, or other stakeholders, and may include but are not limited to the following issues:

• Editorial decisions (including manuscript rejections);
• Perceived unfairness or lack of transparency in the peer review process;
• Unethical behavior or actions by editors or reviewers;
• Allegations of violations of publication integrity or ethics;
• Inadequate journal communication or editorial service;
• Disputes related to copyright, plagiarism, or misuse of scholarly work.

Procedure for Submitting Complaints or Appeals

Complaints or appeals must be submitted in writing to the official email address: [email protected], and must include:

• The identity of the complainant (which can be kept confidential upon request);
• Complete details of the manuscript (title, ID, date of submission);
• A chronological description of the issue;
• Supporting evidence, where applicable;
• A clear statement of the expected resolution or outcome.

Handling Principles

• All complaints and appeals will be addressed confidentially, impartially, and in a timely manner.
• An initial response will be provided within 14 business days of receipt.
• Investigations may involve editorial board members, independent reviewers, or affiliated institutions if necessary.

Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions, particularly in cases where there is:

• Evidence of factual error impacting judgment;
• Indications of bias or lack of objectivity from the reviewer or editor;
• The emergence of new, relevant information.
  Appeals must be supported by a logical, scholarly argument and should not merely repeat prior arguments. The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may assign an independent reviewer. The decision following the appeal process is final and not subject to further challenge.

Complaints Against Editors, Reviewers, or Editorial Staff

In cases where the complaint involves an editor, reviewer, or member of the editorial staff, the matter will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an impartial editorial board member to avoid conflicts of interest. In serious cases, the journal may refer the issue to the individual’s affiliated institution or seek further consultation with COPE.

Follow-Up Actions and Sanctions

If a complaint is found to be valid, JCHS may take the following actions:

• Issuance of a formal apology;
• Revision of editorial procedures;
• Replacement of the editor or reviewer involved;
• Retraction of the manuscript in cases of serious ethical violations;
• Restriction or suspension of the individual’s involvement with JCHS’s editorial activities in the future.

JCHS affirms that all complaints and appeals will be managed in accordance with the COPE Core Practices and recognized international publishing standards. We value all feedback as a meaningful contribution to upholding the integrity and quality of scholarly publishing.
For more information on COPE’s guidelines for handling complaints and appeals, please visit: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

Back to top

---

Allegations of Research Misconduct

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) upholds the highest standards of scientific integrity and bears the responsibility of preserving public trust and the quality of the scientific record. Therefore, all allegations of research misconduct will be taken seriously and handled fairly, confidentially, and promptly in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and international best practices.

Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them as if they were real.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, or data in a way that misrepresents the research.
• Plagiarism: Using another person’s ideas, data, or words without proper attribution.

Honest errors or differences in interpretation do not constitute misconduct.

Procedure for Handling Allegations

When a concern is raised, the following steps will be taken:

• Initial Review: The Editor will evaluate whether the allegation is credible, specific, and consistent with the definition of research misconduct.
• Notification of Authors: If warranted, the concerned authors will be notified and given the opportunity to respond with a written explanation.
• Internal Investigation: The Editor may form an investigation panel or engage independent reviewers to assess the evidence and scientific narrative.
• Institutional Coordination: In serious cases, the journal may contact the authors’ affiliated institution(s) to assist with further investigation.
• Outcome and Actions: If the allegation is substantiated: the article may be retracted or corrected through a corrigendum, and additional administrative measures may be taken. If unsubstantiated: a clarification may be published, and the authors’ reputations may be restored if necessary.

Guiding Principles

• Fairness: All parties have the right to respond and will be treated without prejudice.
• Confidentiality: The identities of both the complainant and respondent will be protected and disclosed only to relevant individuals.
• Timeliness: All allegations will be handled efficiently to avoid unnecessary harm to reputation or scientific progress.

Corrective Measures

If misconduct is confirmed, corrective actions may include:

• Retraction or correction of the publication;
• Suspension of the author’s submission privileges for a specified period;
• Notification of relevant publishers, funding bodies, professional associations, or the public, as necessary.

Whistleblower Protection and Accountability

Individuals who report misconduct in good faith will be protected from retaliation. Conversely, knowingly submitting false allegations will be considered a serious ethical breach and may be subject to disciplinary action.

Back to top

---

Conflicts of Interest

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. As part of this commitment, JCHS requires all authors, editors, and reviewers to disclose any actual or potential Conflicts of Interest (COIs)—also known as competing interests—that may influence, or appear to influence, the submission, review, or publication of a manuscript.

Definition of Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when personal, financial, institutional, or professional considerations may affect—or may reasonably be perceived to affect—an individual’s objectivity or ability to act in the best interest of the scholarly record. COIs may arise at any stage of the research, authorship, or publication process, and include but are not limited to:

• Financial interests: Research funding, consulting fees, honoraria, stock or share ownership (including of close family members), royalties, or intellectual property rights that may benefit from the publication;

• Employment and institutional affiliations: Current, recent, or pending employment or leadership positions in organizations that could benefit or suffer from the published content;

• Personal or professional relationships: Collaborations, family ties, or advisory roles with individuals or groups who may gain from the publication;

• Ideological or academic bias: Strongly held beliefs, positions, or theoretical commitments that could influence interpretation or presentation of findings.

Conflicts of interest may be real or perceived. The guiding principle is transparency—disclosing any circumstance that might lead others to question the impartiality of the work.

Disclosure Requirements for Authors

All authors must provide a detailed Conflict of Interest / Competing Interests Statement during submission. Disclosures must cover relevant interests from the past three years. Interests older than three years should also be declared if they are relevant to the submitted work. Where no conflicts exist, the authors must clearly state:

“The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.”

This statement will be published with the article to maintain full transparency.

Examples of disclosure wording include:

• Financial interests: Author A has received research grants from Company X. Author B owns stock in Company Y and serves as a paid consultant for Company Z.

• Non-financial interests: Author C serves as an unpaid board member for Organization A. Author D holds a leadership position in a relevant academic society.

If all authors share the same statement, a single collective declaration is sufficient.

Disclosure Requirements for Editors and Reviewers

• Editors must refrain from handling any manuscript where a conflict exists. Such manuscripts will be reassigned to a neutral editor.

• Reviewers must decline invitations to review if they have any COI—financial, institutional, or relational—that could impair their objectivity.

• Any COIs by editors or reviewers must be disclosed in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.

Funding Disclosure

Because funding may present a potential conflict of interest, authors must also provide a clear Funding Statement upon submission. Funding details should include:

• Name(s) of funding organizations;

• Grant numbers (if applicable);

• Whether the funders had any role in study design, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Examples:

• “This study was funded by [Name of Funder], Grant No. [XXX].”

• “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

This information should be included in the manuscript’s Declarations section and on the title page for editorial review.

Location and Format of Disclosure

All COI and funding declarations should be included on a separate title page at the time of submission, under the heading “Declarations.” This page should also include:

• Ethics approval;

• Consent to participate and publish;

• Data and materials availability;

• Author contributions.

Upon acceptance, these statements will be published in a clearly labeled section in the final article for reader accessibility.

Post-Publication Disclosures

If a conflict of interest is discovered after publication that was not previously disclosed, JCHS may take one or more of the following actions:

• Publish a correction, editorial notice, or expression of concern;

• Conduct a formal investigation into the integrity of the article;

• Retract the article if the conflict significantly compromises the validity of the findings.

The Editor-in-Chief, in accordance with COPE guidelines, will oversee the resolution of all such cases.

Third-Party Reporting

Anyone (readers, institutions, or other stakeholders) who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest may report it confidentially to the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. JCHS will investigate and act in accordance with COPE’s flowcharts and recommendations.

Back to top

---

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) supports the principles of scientific openness by encouraging authors to practice transparent data sharing and ensure the reproducibility of their research findings. This policy aims to enhance scientific integrity, facilitate independent verification, and promote responsible use of data for advancing knowledge.

Data Availability and Sharing

Authors are encouraged to store and share raw data, analytical datasets, protocols, statistical code, and other supporting materials via trusted public repositories such as the psyarxiv, Open Science Framework (OSF), Zenodo, Dryad, or Figshare. Open data sharing is a key component in promoting transparency, accountability, and reproducibility in scientific research. Therefore, each manuscript submitted to JCHS must include a Data Availability Statement clearly indicating where and how the data can be accessed by readers or, if data cannot be shared, provide a legitimate reason such as ethical, privacy, or legal restrictions.

Examples of acceptable statements include:

• “The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS OR DOI]”
• “Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.”
• “Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed.”

This statement should be included at the end of the manuscript before the references, or as specified by the journal's formatting guidelines.

Pre-registration

Preregistration involves registering hypotheses, study designs, and data analysis plans in a public repository before data collection begins. This helps to reduce reporting bias and p-hacking. Authors are encouraged to preregister their studies on platforms such as:

• Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/prereg/

• AsPredicted: https://aspredicted.org/

If a study has been preregistered, authors must include an anonymized link to the registration in the manuscript submitted for the review process.

Reporting Guidelines

Authors must follow the relevant guidelines for their study type. Compliance with these guidelines will be checked during the editorial process. The manuscript must include a statement of compliance, and if requested, authors must submit a completed checklist.

• CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials): Required for reports of randomized clinical trials. http://www.consort-statement.org/

• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses): Required for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. http://www.prisma-statement.org/

• STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): Strongly recommended for observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional). https://www.strobe-statement.org/

• SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) and COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research): Strongly recommended for all types of qualitative research. COREQ is more specific for studies using interviews and focus groups.

  • SRQR Source:  https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/

  • COREQ Source: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/coreq/

Authors must state in the manuscript (typically in the Methods section) which reporting guideline they have followed. Example Statement: "This systematic review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines."

Reproducibility and Transparency in Analysis

Authors are encouraged to include:

• Statistical and modeling scripts (e.g., in R, SPSS, Python, etc.);
• Detailed documentation of methodological procedures;
• Information about validation of tools or measurement instruments.

For secondary data use or third-party datasets, authors must explicitly describe the source, access permissions, and usage limitations.

Author Responsibility and Editorial Oversight

• Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and completeness of the shared data.
• Editors and reviewers have the right to request access to data as part of the manuscript evaluation process.
• JCHS reserves the right to reject or retract articles where serious discrepancies are found between reported data and presented findings.

Ethics and Privacy in Data Sharing

For data involving sensitive, personal, or legally protected information (e.g., patient data, children’s data, genetic information), authors must ensure:

• Appropriate ethical approvals and informed consent have been obtained;
• Data have been anonymized prior to sharing;
• Data sharing complies with relevant privacy regulations such as the GDPR or national legal frameworks.

Back to top

---

Journal Archiving Policy

Back to top

---

Post-publication

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) supports constructive academic discourse after publication through multiple channels, including reader comments, letters to the editor, and verified online forums such as PubPeer. Any critique of a published article is considered a valid scholarly contribution if it is based on sound data, scientific arguments, or interpretations.

Formal post-publication critiques will be evaluated by the editorial team, and if relevant, the original article’s authors will be invited to respond. Both the critique and the author’s response may undergo peer review and, if accepted, will be published as indexed correspondence or official commentary. JCHS upholds transparency and recognizes the scientific value of identifying errors or shortcomings in published work.

The journal reserves the right to reject critiques that are not constructive, lack adequate evidence, or include defamatory content. Where appropriate, the Editor may facilitate communication between the commenter and the authors by setting a reasonable response deadline to avoid prolonged, unresolved disputes. The COPE Flowchart for post-publication critiques will serve as the guiding framework for fair and consistent handling of such cases.

Back to top

---

Corrections and Retractions

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and accuracy of the scholarly record. We recognize that the need to correct or retract published work may arise from honest errors, methodological flaws, or ethical violations. JCHS follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to guide decisions about post-publication changes. These actions are taken with utmost seriousness and aim to preserve trust in the scientific process and the published literature.

Circumstances Requiring Corrections or Retractions

A correction, retraction, or expression of concern may be issued in the following circumstances:

• Substantial errors in data, analysis, or interpretation that compromise the validity of the study;
• Ethical breaches, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and peer-review manipulation;
• Duplicate publication or undeclared conflicts of interest;
• Unethical research involving human or animal subjects without proper approval or informed consent;
• Production errors that affect readers’ ability to understand or cite the article accurately.

Corrections (Errata and Corrigenda

Corrections will be issued for minor errors that do not affect the overall scientific conclusions of the work. These may include typographical mistakes, incorrect author affiliations, mislabeling of figures or tables, or citation inaccuracies. In such cases:

• An Erratum (for author errors) or a Corrigendum (for publisher errors) will be published.
• The correction notice will be linked to the original article and made freely accessible.
• The original article will remain available online to maintain the scholarly record, with an annotation indicating that it has been corrected.
• If the metadata (e.g., title, authorship) is affected, a Publisher’s Note may also be issued to clarify changes.

Retractions

A retraction will be issued when:

• There is clear evidence that findings are unreliable, either due to misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, plagiarism) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental mistake);
• The article has been previously published elsewhere without proper disclosure;
• The research violates ethical norms, such as lack of IRB approval or absence of informed consent.

Retraction notices will:

• Be clearly labeled and linked to the retracted article;
• State the reason for retraction and who initiated the decision (authors, editors, or publisher);
• Remain freely available to ensure the integrity of the scientific record;
• Not remove the original article but mark it as retracted.

If all authors do not agree to the retraction, this will be clearly noted. In rare and extreme cases, such as legal violations or court orders, JCHS reserves the right to redact or permanently remove content. In such cases, a bibliographic record will be preserved.

Publisher’s Note

A Publisher’s Note may be issued when typographical or production errors caused by the journal's editorial process materially impact the article's metadata or hinder reader comprehension. In such instances:

• The original version may be replaced with a corrected version within one year of publication;
• The correction date will be noted on the article;
• For articles older than one year, changes will only be documented via a Publisher’s Note, without replacing the original.

Handling Procedure

All correction and retraction decisions:

• Are made based on COPE’s best practice guidelines (see COPE Retraction Guidelines);
• May involve the corresponding author, editorial board, and the author's institution if warranted;
• Will be transparently documented and executed in a timely and consistent manner;
• Will not alter the original article’s DOI to ensure traceability and citation continuity.

By maintaining a robust and responsible corrections and retractions policy, JCHS aims to uphold the quality and trustworthiness of scientific publishing and safeguard the interests of authors, readers, and the broader academic community.

Back to top

---

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

Authors are not permitted to withdraw a submitted or published manuscript without compelling and legitimate reasons. Unjustified withdrawal is considered unethical and wasteful, as it disregards the substantial time and resources invested by editors, reviewers, and the publisher throughout the editorial and production process. Withdrawal requests made for the sole reason that the manuscript has been accepted by another journal are deemed unethical and violate the principles of responsible scholarly publishing, as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Should an author still wish to request the withdrawal of a manuscript, a formal written request must be submitted by the corresponding author. This request must include a clear and valid reason for the withdrawal and must be accompanied by a signed Article Withdrawal Form approved by all co-authors (or the corresponding author on behalf of all authors). Authors must not consider the manuscript withdrawn until they have received an official written confirmation from the editorial office. All withdrawal-related inquiries should be directed to [email protected].

If a manuscript is under peer review or in production (e.g., copyediting, layout, or proofreading), authors must provide sufficient justification for the withdrawal and may be subject to administrative or editorial processing fees to offset operational costs already incurred by the journal.

The final decision regarding a withdrawal request rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief or managing editor, and such decisions are non-negotiable. Furthermore, the editorial board reserves the right to unilaterally withdraw a manuscript if it is found to involve ethical misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or any other form of research fraud. For information regarding the journal’s policy on Corrections and Retractions, authors are encouraged to consult the following link: https://ukinstitute.org/journals/2/jchs/ethics#corrections.

Ethical Oversight

The Journal of Current Health Sciences (JCHS) emphasizes the importance of ethical oversight throughout all stages of the publication process—from study design and implementation to manuscript preparation and publication. This oversight includes, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publish, research involving vulnerable populations, studies involving human and animal subjects, treatment of confidential data, and ethical business and marketing practices.

Research Involving Human Subjects

For all studies involving human participants, authors must:

• Obtain ethical approval from a recognized institutional review board or ethics committee;
• Include a clear statement within the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants;
• Describe the measures taken to protect participants' rights, privacy, and well-being;
• Comply with international ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki.

When using secondary data or identifiable recordings, authors must provide documented consent from participants or their legal guardians.

Research Involving Vulnerable Populations

For research involving children, individuals with disabilities, the elderly, or minority groups, authors must describe the additional safeguards taken to protect these populations. Editors may request further documentation to ensure full compliance with ethical standards for vulnerable groups.

Animal Research

All research involving animals must be conducted humanely and ethically. Authors must comply with all applicable institutional, national, and international laws, regulations, and guidelines. JCHS requires the following:

• Ethics Committee Approval: The research must receive approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or an equivalent ethics committee before the study commences.

• Compliance with the 3Rs Principles: The research protocol must be designed to adhere to the 3Rs principles, which are the cornerstone of ethical animal research. https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs

  • Replacement: Using non-animal methods whenever possible.

  • Reduction: Using the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve statistically valid results.

  • Refinement: Modifying procedures to minimize pain, suffering, or distress to the animals.

• Compliance with ARRIVE Guidelines: Manuscripts reporting the results of animal research must be prepared in accordance with the ARRIVE 2.0 (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting. Please see https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines

In the Methods section, authors must include an explicit statement that covers:

1. The full name of the ethics committee that granted approval (e.g., Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Universitas Gadjah Mada).

2. The ethics approval number issued by the committee.

3. A statement that all procedures were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines, such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or applicable national legislation.

Example Statement: "All experimental procedures involving animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Universitas Indonesia (Approval Number: UI-IACUC-015-2025) and were conducted in accordance with the 3Rs principles and the ARRIVE guidelines."

Confidential Data and Privacy Protection

Authors must maintain the confidentiality of participant data, especially data involving health, psychological, or other sensitive information. Personally identifiable data may only be published if explicit, written consent has been obtained from the individual concerned.

Consent to Publish

Authors are required to obtain written consent from all individuals named or depicted in the manuscript, including photographs or personal interview excerpts, particularly if the material is individually identifiable.

Approval From Ethics Committee

When reporting research involving human participants, authors must include a statement confirming that the study has obtained approval (or an exemption) from the appropriate institutional or national research ethics committee. This statement should also mention the name of the ethics committee and affirm that the study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards set forth in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or equivalent ethical standards. If there is any uncertainty regarding the study's compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or similar standards, authors must explain their reasoning and provide evidence that an independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the aspects of the study that might be in question. If the study was exempt from requiring ethical approval, this must be clearly stated in the manuscript, along with the reasons for the exemption.

Ethical Violations

Editors reserve the right to reject or retract a manuscript if compelling evidence demonstrates that:

• Ethical approval was not obtained from an authorized committee;
• Informed consent was not secured;
• The research was conducted in violation of international ethical principles;
• Consent documentation was falsified or ethical compliance was misreported.

Author and Institutional Responsibilities

Authors bear full responsibility for ensuring that all research procedures comply with ethical standards and applicable regulations. In cases of suspected violations, the journal will contact and cooperate with the authors’ affiliated institution and follow COPE's guidelines and workflows in managing the investigation.

Examples of Ethics Approval Statements

• "All procedures conducted in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of A (Approval No. ...)."

• "This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of University B (Date.../Approval No. ...)."

• "Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of University C. The procedures followed in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki."

• "The questionnaire and methodology for this study were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of University D (Ethics approval number: ...)."

Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the statements provided in their manuscripts. For more information, refer to the section on Authorship Principles. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not adhere to the guidelines outlined in this section.

Back to top

---