Digital Healthcare Innovation and Technologies (DHIT) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and scientific integrity. As a peer-reviewed, open-access, and APC-free journal dedicated to engineering, medicine, and digital health sciences, DHIT adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the best practices recommended by DOAJ, and the ethical criteria required by Scopus and PubMed.

This policy outlines the responsibilities, ethical expectations, and operational principles that guide authors, editors, reviewers, and all parties involved in the publication process.

Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.

All contributors must be listed according to their level of contribution, and the corresponding author is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the authorship list.

Ghost authorship, honorary authorship, or any form of unethical authorship manipulation is strictly prohibited.

Authors must clearly define individual contributions (e.g., methodology, data analysis, supervision, writing).

Editors must avoid handling manuscripts in which they have any financial, personal, or institutional conflicts.

When an editor submits a paper to DHIT, the editorial process is conducted independently without the editor’s involvement.

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest, including financial support, institutional ties, or any factor that may influence the research outcomes.

Authors from the same institution as reviewers are not permitted to evaluate each other’s manuscripts.

Reviewers must immediately inform editors of any conflict of interest and decline the evaluation when necessary.

Data Access, Integrity, and Retention

Authors may be requested to provide raw data for editorial review and must preserve these data for a reasonable period after publication.

Authors must ensure the accuracy and reliability of data and avoid unethical practices such as fabrication, falsification, selective reporting, or inappropriate image manipulation.

Data Fabrication, Falsification, and Image Manipulation

Any form of fabrication or falsification is strictly forbidden.

Acceptable image adjustments (contrast, brightness) must be applied to the entire image and must not misrepresent findings.

Any technical enhancement must be disclosed to the editor.

DHIT strongly encourages authors to make datasets, code, and supplementary materials publicly available unless restricted by privacy laws or data protection regulations.

All referenced datasets must be cited in the reference list.

Manuscripts must be original and not under review elsewhere.

Previously published work must be cited appropriately, and overlapping content must be justified with clear explanations of novel contributions.

Authors retain copyright of their work under an open-access license.

Reviewers and editors must treat all submissions as confidential and may not use or share unpublished material.

DHIT follows COPE guidelines in cases requiring:

Correction for minor errors not affecting conclusions.

Retraction for serious ethical breaches or invalidated findings.

Expression of concern when integrity issues are unresolved, or the investigation is inconclusive.

For studies involving humans, human data, clinical experimentation, or sensitive personal information:

Ethics committee approval is mandatory and must be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Informed consent must be obtained when required.

Permissions must be provided for copyrighted instruments (scales, images, surveys).

Compliance with GDPR, HIPAA, or national data protection laws is required.

DHIT may publish one special issue per year.

All submissions undergo the same rigorous double-blind peer-review process.

Guest editors must comply fully with DHIT editorial standards.

Behaviors considered scientific misconduct include, but are not limited to:

Plagiarism

Fabrication and falsification

Salami slicing

Unfair authorship practices

Misuse of privileged information

Misrepresentation of findings

Manipulated citations

Violating confidentiality in peer review

Conducting research without required permissions

Authors must:

Submit original, high-quality research relevant to DHIT’s scope.

Ensure accuracy, transparency, and reproducibility.

Avoid plagiarism and manipulated citations.

Ensure similarity index remains within acceptable limits.

Respond constructively to reviewer comments and revise manuscripts accordingly.

Appropriately acknowledge funding sources, contributions, and institutional support.

Provide AI-use declarations when generative tools are used in the writing or analysis process.

Reviewers must:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and within the agreed deadline.

Decline reviews outside their expertise.

Avoid personal criticism and provide clear, evidence-based feedback.

Report suspected ethical issues or conflicts of interest to editors.

Do not use unpublished data or concepts for personal research.

Editors must:

Ensure fairness, impartiality, and confidentiality.

Base decisions solely on scientific merit, originality, and relevance.

Avoid conflicts of interest and manage them when they arise.

Ensure the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Oversee timely handling of submissions, revisions, and publication stages.

Initiate investigations when ethical concerns are raised.

Uphold COPE guidelines in all editorial decisions.

Manuscripts are checked for compliance with journal guidelines and similarity detection tools.

Similarity thresholds must be met for peer review to begin.

Editors assess scope, scientific quality, structure, and language.

DHIT uses a rigorous double-blind review model, ensuring anonymity of both authors and reviewers.

Authors must submit detailed revisions addressing each reviewer's comment.

Unsatisfactory revisions may result in rejection.

The Editorial Board makes the final decision on publication based on scientific merit and reviewer feedback.

Accepted papers undergo English proofreading and technical formatting.

Requests for authorship changes require written consent from all authors and will be evaluated in accordance with COPE flowcharts.

Complaints regarding editorial decisions, delays, or ethical concerns are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals may result in additional review or reconsideration by a different reviewer.

All complaints are resolved transparently and in accordance with COPE standards.