Policy and Ethics

The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal "Current Health Sciences Journal" is a reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the peer reviewer, the journal editor and the publisher. Our ethics and malpractice statement is based on the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers laid out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Assumption of responsibility

Authors are required to sign and submit: Cover Letter, Copyright Statement, Statement of Authorship/Conflict of Interest, and Submission Checklist at the time of submission. This applies to all manuscripts

Reporting standards

To ensure the transparency, accuracy, and completeness of published research, our journal endorses the use of internationally recognized reporting guidelines. Authors are required to prepare their manuscripts in accordance with the recommendations specific to their study design. Authors should ensure that their research can be replicated under similar conditions by other research teams. To do this, authors should explain in detail the methodology used and use correct citation of sources, and if studies include photographs resulting from the research, they should not be processed and presented without any alteration. We also recommend that the raw data be published in a dedicated repository (e.g. Zenodo), so that other research teams can access them and expand on the original research. Where appropriate, we encourage the use of standards in the field.

The most common guidelines include, but are not limited to: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and CARE for case reports.

Authors must state in the "Methods" section which reporting guideline they have followed and should be prepared to provide the completed checklist upon request. A comprehensive list of guidelines can be found on the EQUATOR Network website.

Adherence to these standards is essential for enhancing the quality, reproducibility, and value of scientific research.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Conflict of Interest

The Journal asks research articles authors to disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they may have with a company whose product figures prominently in the submitted manuscript or with a company making a competing product. Such information will be held in confidence while the paper is under review and will not influence the editorial decision, but if the article is accepted for publication, the editors will usually discuss with the authors the way such information is going to be communicated to the reader.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

The Editors expect each of the authors to have read the complete manuscript and to take responsibility for the content with his/her co-authors.

All authors must disclose any relationship or interest that could be perceived as influencing their work. A complete conflict of interest statement must be included in the manuscript before the reference section, as required by the journal’s template . This includes, but is not limited to:
• Funding: Sources of funding for research, salaries, or other forms of support.
• Personal Financial Relationships: Stocks, consulting fees, or patents related to the manuscript's subject matter.
• Institutional Relationships: Affiliations with entities that have a direct interest in the research outcomes.
• Personal Relationships: Close ties with individuals whose position could be affected by the publication of the manuscript.

Data Sharing Policy

We strongly encourage authors to make the data, code, and other materials necessary to reproduce the findings presented in their manuscript available. Authors can achieve this through one of the following methods:

1. Publication as Supplementary Materials: Reasonably sized datasets can be uploaded directly to the journal's platform as supplementary materials to the article. These will be published alongside the article and will be accessible to readers.

2. Deposition in a Specialized Repository (Recommended Method): For larger or more complex datasets, we recommend depositing them in a public, specialized, and trusted data repository. Using a repository ensures long-term preservation, proper archiving, and the assignment of a unique and persistent identifier (such as a DOI), allowing the dataset to be cited independently. We recommend the use of general-purpose repositories like Zenodo, Figshare, Dryad, or discipline-specific repositories recognized in the field.

Data Availability Statement

Regardless of the chosen method, all submitted manuscripts must include a section titled "Data Availability Statement." This statement must clearly specify where the data can be accessed. Examples of statements include:

• "The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [Repository Name] at [link/DOI]."

• "The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available as a supplementary material to this article."

• "The data are not publicly available due to patient confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request."

Data Retention

Authors are responsible for retaining the primary data, metadata, and any materials associated with the research for a reasonable period of time (a minimum of 5 years) after publication, in order to respond to any inquiries regarding the accuracy or integrity of the study.

Good clinical and experimental practice

Our journal requires adherence to the highest ethical standards in research involving human or animal subjects. Authors must ensure that their study complies with all relevant national and international laws and institutional guidelines.

Any manuscript reporting research on human or animal subjects must include the two dedicated sections titled "Institutional Review Board" and “Consent Statement”, according to the Author’s guide and the template of the journal.

The principles of research ethics apply to any manuscript involving human subjects, regardless of the nature of the interaction. This scope extends beyond interventional clinical trials to include research based on methods such as questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, observational studies, or the analysis of personally identifiable data. Special attention must be paid to studies involving vulnerable populations (e.g., minors, patients with cognitive impairments, prisoners, or individuals in dependent situations). In such cases, authors must demonstrate that they have implemented additional safeguards to prevent any form of coercion or exploitation and to ensure that the decision to participate is entirely voluntary and informed. For all participants, regardless of the type of study, informed consent must be obtained in writing. Authors have a fundamental obligation to retain these consent forms and must be prepared to provide proof at any time upon request from the editors, both during the review process and post-publication, to verify that participation was voluntary and based on a clear understanding of the research.

Research Involving Human Subjects

Any manuscript reporting research on human subjects must include a dedicated section titled "Ethical Approval and Informed Consent" within the "Methods" chapter.For studies including human subjects, the two dedicated manuscript sections This section must confirm the following:

1. Ethics Committee Approval: All research protocols must have been reviewed and approved by an institutional or regional ethics committee (Institutional Review Board - IRB). The manuscript must clearly state the name of the committee that granted approval and the corresponding approval number.

2. Principles of the Declaration of Helsinki: The research must have been conducted in accordance with the ethical principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki.

3. Informed Consent:

o Adult Participants: Obtaining written informed consent from all adult participants is mandatory. The manuscript must include a statement confirming this.

o Minors and Vulnerable Populations: Research involving minors or vulnerable individuals (e.g., patients with cognitive impairments) is subject to additional ethical requirements. For minors, written informed consent from a parent or legal guardian is required, in addition to assent (informed agreement) from the minor if their age and comprehension capacity allow. Authors must detail the measures taken to protect the rights and welfare of these participants.

4. Data Confidentiality: All measures must be taken to protect participant anonymity and the confidentiality of their data.

Research Involving Animals

1. Justification of Use: Authors must demonstrate in the manuscript why the use of animals was essential to achieve the scientific objectives and why an alternative method (e.g., in vitro, computer simulations) that could lead to results of similar scientific value was not feasible.

2. Ethics Committee Approval: The study must have been approved by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The name of the committee and the approval number must be mentioned in the manuscript.

3. Welfare Standards: Authors must describe the measures taken to ensure animal welfare, in accordance with national and international legislation (e.g., EU Directive 2010/63/EU). These measures must adhere to the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement):

o Replacement: Using non-animal methods whenever possible.

o Reduction: Using the minimum number of animals necessary to obtain statistically relevant results.

o Refinement: Adapting experimental procedures to minimize animal pain, suffering, and distress.

Exemptions from Ethics Committee Approval

Formal approval from an ethics committee is generally not required for studies that exclusively use publicly available, anonymized data from specialized databases or official repositories (e.g., government statistical data, publicly released clinical trial datasets).

However, it is the authors' responsibility to verify the policies of their affiliated institution. Some institutions may still require a formal notification or a waiver from their ethics committee even in these cases. The absence of personally identifiable information is a critical condition for this exemption.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

The authors must guarantee: (1) that the article has not been published elsewhere; (2) it is not being considered for publication elsewhere; and (3) that it has been submitted with the full knowledge and approval of the institution or organization given as the affiliation of the authors. Submission of multi-authored manuscripts implies the consent of each of the authors.

If data from the article is used, partially or entirely, in other research articles, or the data and results represent only part of a bigger research project described in multiple publications, these must be clearly presented to the editor.

Materials copied from other sources must be accompanied by a written statement from both the author and original publisher giving permission to Current Health Sciences Journal for reproduction. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that such permissions are obtained.

Originality and plagiarism

Current Health Sciences Journal only publishes original and unpublished academic articles that have not been previously published in any other format, in full text or even partially. If an article is paraphrasing another author's results or ideas, in any form, or if the information presented in a manuscript is not common knowledge, a proper citation of the original source is mandatory. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In order to apply this policy, the journal uses iThenticate similarity checker (https://www.ithenticate.com/), and currently, we cannot accept for publication manuscripts that fail to prove a similitude report below 10%. Plagiarism control is carried out before peer review begins, and if the editors determine a behavior linked to plagiarism, the manuscript will be rejected from evaluation.

At present, Current Health Sciences Journal does not encourage the extensive use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technologies, such as Large Language Models (LLM) or chatbots, in writing an academic material. Therefore, no LLM tool can be credited as a co-author of an academic material, and the authors utilizing limited support from LLM tools should clearly document its use in the methods or acknowledgements sections.

Complaints and Appeals Procedure

We are committed to addressing all complaints and allegations of misconduct in a prompt, fair, and confidential manner. Any individual wishing to file a complaint regarding a published manuscript or the editorial process is requested to contact the Editor-in-Chief directly at the journal's official email address. The complaint should be clearly articulated and include specific evidence to support the claim (e.g., suspected plagiarism, data falsification, undisclosed conflicts of interest, etc.). The Editorial Board will initiate an internal investigation, adhering to the principles of impartiality and confidentiality. Upon completion of the investigation, we will communicate our findings and the editorial decision to the complainant and, if necessary, take appropriate corrective measures, which may include publishing a correction, an expression of concern, or retracting the article.

1. Handling Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This also includes self-plagiarism (the republication of significant portions of one's own work without proper citation).

• Detection: All submitted manuscripts are automatically screened using specialized similarity detection software (iThenticate). Additionally, editors and peer reviewers are encouraged to report any suspicion of plagiarism they identify during the evaluation process.

• Investigation: In case of suspicion, the Editor-in-Chief will initiate a confidential investigation. The similarity report is analyzed, and the text in question is compared with the original sources to determine the extent and nature of the overlap. The authors are contacted to provide an explanation.

• Measures Applied:
o Before publication: If plagiarism is confirmed, the manuscript is immediately rejected.
o After publication: If a published article is found to contain plagiarism, it will be retracted. A retraction notice explaining the reason will be published, and the authors' institution will be formally notified of this serious ethical breach.

2. Handling Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation is the excessive and inappropriate inclusion of citations with the aim of artificially inflating the impact factor of a journal, author, or article. This includes coercive citation (when an editor or reviewer forces an author to add irrelevant citations from their own journal) and excessive self-citation.

• Detection: Our editors and peer reviewers actively assess the relevance of the list of references. Any case in which it appears to be artificially "inflated" with citations from a specific source or author is flagged.

• Investigation: The relevance of each suspicious citation will be analyzed within the context of the article. If it is determined that the citations do not provide genuine scientific support for the argument, it is considered a form of manipulation.

• Measures Applied:
o Before publication: Authors will be asked to revise the bibliography and remove irrelevant citations. Refusal to cooperate or severe cases of manipulation may lead to the rejection of the manuscript. Our journal has a zero-tolerance policy for coercive citation from our editors or reviewers.
o After publication: Each case will be investigated and treated individually. In severe cases, the article will be retracted.

3. Handling Data Fabrication and Falsification

This is one of the most serious ethical violations. Fabrication is the invention of data, while falsification is the alteration, manipulation, or omission of data and results to support a hypothesis.

• Detection: Suspicions may be raised by reviewers during evaluation (if data appear "too perfect" or inconsistent) or by readers after publication.

• Investigation: In the event of a credible suspicion, the editorial board will request access to the primary (raw) data from the authors for verification. Authors are obligated to provide this data. The analysis may also involve consulting with statistical experts.

• Measures Applied:
o If data fabrication or falsification is proven, the manuscript will be rejected (if unpublished) or retracted (if already published).
o This misconduct is considered scientific fraud. Therefore, we will formally notify the authors' affiliated institution and, where applicable, the research funding bodies, presenting the collected evidence.

4. Handling Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when an author's, reviewer's, or editor's professional judgment concerning a manuscript could be influenced by secondary interests (financial, personal, academic). All authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest at the time of manuscript submission.

• Detection: An undisclosed conflict of interest may be discovered by reviewers, editors, or readers who are aware of the authors' professional context.

• Investigation: The editorial office will contact the authors to request clarification. An assessment will be made to determine if the undisclosed conflict of interest could have influenced the interpretation of the results or the peer-review process.

• Measures Applied:
o If discovered after publication: The course of action depends on the severity. For minor omissions, a correction (Corrigendum) may be published to add the conflict of interest statement.
o In serious cases: If it is determined that an undisclosed conflict of interest has fundamentally compromised the integrity of the study or the review process, the article may be retracted.

Correction (Corrigendum/Erratum)

A correction is published to rectify minor errors that do not invalidate the overall conclusions of the article. These are mistakes or omissions that may affect the understanding of specific details but do not compromise the fundamental results and interpretations of the study.
Typical situations for an erratum:

• Typographical errors in author names or affiliations.

• Errors in tables or figures that do not influence the final results.

• Omission of a reference or a section in the Acknowledgments.

• Minor inaccuracies in the methods description, that do not alter the replicability or outcome of the study.

A correction notice (titled Corrigendum if the error originates from the author, or Erratum if the error originates from the publisher) will be published and electronically linked to the original article to ensure maximum visibility.

Article Retraction

A retraction is the most serious post-publication action and is applied in cases of major or fundamental errors that irremediably undermine the validity of the study. A retraction indicates that the article's data or conclusions are unreliable.

Typical situations for a retraction:

• Discovery of fabricated, falsified, or manipulated data.

• Major computational or experimental errors that completely invalidate the conclusions.

• Plagiarism or redundant publication (publishing the same study in multiple journals).

• Research conducted without the appropriate ethical approval.

A Retraction Notice will be published, explaining the reason for the retraction. The original article will be prominently marked as "RETRACTED," but will remain available in the archive to maintain a transparent scientific record.

Procedure for when authors identify errors

We encourage authors to notify the editorial office immediately upon discovering any error or inaccuracy in their published article. The integrity of the scientific process depends on the shared responsibility of authors and editors.

Please follow these steps:

1. Contacting the Editorial Office: The corresponding author must send an email to the Editor-in-Chief at the journal's official address (contact@chsjournal.org). The email must include:

o The full title of the article, the list of authors, and publication details (volume, issue, page numbers).

o A clear and detailed description of the identified error(s).

o An explanation of the impact the error has on the article's results and conclusions.

2. Editorial Assessment: The Editorial Board will review the author's notification to determine the severity of the error. A decision will be made as to whether the situation warrants a correction or a retraction, according to the definitions above. The decision will be communicated transparently to the corresponding author.

3. Implementing the Change:

o For minor errors: A Corrigendum notice will be published. The authors will be asked to provide the exact text for the correction, which will then be reviewed and published by the editorial team. The notice will be permanently linked to the online version of the original article.

o For major errors: The retraction process will be initiated. A Retraction Notice will be published, drafted in collaboration with the authors (if they agree) or solely by the editorial board. The original article will be marked accordingly in all databases where it is indexed.

Through this policy, we reaffirm our commitment to scientific rigor and to maintaining a trustworthy record of publication.