Our commitment to ethical standards in scholarly publishing
The American Journal of Healthcare Strategy (AJHCS) follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for all aspects of publication ethics and malpractice. Editors, authors, and reviewers are expected to adhere to these best-practice ethical guidelines.
This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and covers the responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, editors, and peer reviewers.
Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on their intellectual merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to ethical standards, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information about a submitted manuscript must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Editors must recuse themselves from handling submissions where they have a conflict of interest, including competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. In such cases, another qualified editor will manage the review process.
The editor-in-chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript. Decisions are based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, methodological validity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The editor should not reverse a decision to accept a submission unless serious problems are identified.
Peer reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and, through communication with the author, may help improve the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a particular manuscript or who cannot complete a review in the required timeframe should notify the editor promptly.
Reviewers who accept a review assignment agree to complete the review within the agreed-upon timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they must notify the editor as soon as possible so an alternative reviewer can be invited.
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. This applies even after the reviewer has submitted their review.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with observations formulated clearly and supported with evidence. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references.
Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
AJHCS adheres to the principles established in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki for ethical principles regarding medical research involving human subjects.
Research involving human subjects must receive approval from an appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB) or independent ethics committee before the study begins. The name of the approving body and the approval or protocol number must be included in the manuscript.
When research involves human participants, authors must include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their legally authorized representatives). When reporting on identifiable individuals, written informed consent for publication must be obtained.
While AJHCS focuses on healthcare strategy rather than laboratory research, any manuscript involving animal subjects must demonstrate compliance with institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals.
All clinical trials must be registered prospectively in a public registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, or an equivalent WHO-approved registry) before participant enrollment. The trial registration number must be included in the manuscript.
All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using industry-standard detection software. Manuscripts with significant textual overlap with previously published work will be rejected or, if already published, retracted.
AJHCS takes all allegations of misconduct seriously. Allegations are investigated following COPE flowcharts and guidelines. The editor will contact the authors to seek clarification and will involve institutional authorities when necessary.
Corrections (Errata): If minor errors are discovered after publication that do not affect the conclusions of the work, a correction notice will be published and linked to the original article. Expressions of Concern: If there is inconclusive evidence of misconduct but sufficient reason for concern, an expression of concern may be issued while the investigation is ongoing. Retractions: Articles will be retracted if there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or falsification) or honest error, if there is plagiarism, if the research was unethical, or if copyright has been infringed. All retractions follow COPE retraction guidelines.
Authors who believe their manuscript was rejected in error or who wish to appeal a decision regarding alleged misconduct may submit a written appeal to the editor-in-chief. Appeals must include a detailed response to the concerns raised. The editor will review the appeal and may consult additional reviewers or the editorial board before reaching a final decision.
Questions about our ethics policies? Contact the editorial office at editor@ajhcs.org. For full COPE guidance, visit publicationethics.org.
