Publisher Ethics

Archives of Allied Health Sciences (Arch AHS) commits to upholding the highest ethical standards in academic publication. The journal employs a double-blind peer review policy; both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process to ensure fairness and minimize bias. All parties involved in the publication process must adhere to the principles of Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement, which are based on the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

All submissions should be original and not under consideration elsewhere. Any data or results should not be distorted or manipulated to mislead readers. Plagiarism, including uncredited reproduction of text, ideas, images, or data (even from the author's own work), is strictly prohibited. Authors should avoid self-plagiarism by ensuring that previously published works, all reused texts and references are appropriately cited. Manuscripts with a similarity index as detected by the Turnitin exceeding 30% will be returned to the authors for revision. Failure to address this issue will result in outright rejection of the manuscript, terminating the review process. Authors must ensure that they respect intellectual property rights. They must adhere to copyright laws and guidelines, ensuring that all necessary permissions for the use of copyrighted materials are obtained prior to submission.

Editor Ethics

Upon submission, the editor-in-chief will evaluate the submitted manuscript and assign it to a suitable member of the editorial team, based on the research area of the manuscript. This editor is then served as the associate editor who is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers according to their areas of interest and expertise, and suggesting the final decision for the submission. Then the final decision will be made by the editor-in-chief, except in cases with conflicts of interest or differences in opinion.

The editorial board members will provide their advice and guidelines on academic aspects, and may serve as reviewers. All editors must uphold all ethical principles in the decisions related to Arch AHS. The editors must not disclose the identity of the reviewers to the authors and vice versa, and any information from a manuscript before its publication. Reviewers’ information or comments must be confidential and should not be used for personal advantage.

Author Ethics

Authors must adhere to the relevant ethical guidelines for their research. All ethical considerations must be thoroughly addressed to maintain the highest standards of research ethics. Authorship of a manuscript should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the manuscript, including conception, experimental design, interpretation of the research result, and writing of the manuscript. All authors are accountable for any scientific mistakes and arguments as well as plagiarism. The corresponding author is responsible for the revision with carefully addressing all comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. If authors do not agree with any comments of a reviewer, the authors should provide an explanation. However, the final decision is at the discretion of the assigned editor or the editor-in-chief.

Arch AHS follows a strict policy regarding authorship changes. If any author wishes to change the number or the order of authors, i.e., add/delete an author or change the corresponding author, approval of authorship change should be obtained from all authors. Upon acceptance, the corresponding author has to sign the copyright transfer agreement for the journal.

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies for Authors

Arch AHS policy relates solely to manuscript preparation and does not endorse using AI or AI-assisted tools for data analysis or insights in the manuscripts. Authors may use AI to improve language and readability, but must review and edit outputs carefully, as AI may produce incorrect, biased, or overly authoritative information. The only exception is if AI is part of the research methodology (e.g., in biomedical imaging). Such use must be clearly described in the methods, including the AI model name, version, extension, and manufacturer. However, authors must follow software policies, provide proper attribution, and may be asked to submit raw or pre-AI images for review. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, co-authors, or cited sources, as authorship requires human responsibility and oversight. Disclosures of AI use, beyond language and grammar improvement, are required in the manuscript, under the "Generative AI Declaration" heading to promote transparency using the following statement:

This manuscript utilized [NAME TOOL/SERVICE] for [REASON]. The author(s) have reviewed and edited the content as needed and assume full responsibility for the publication's content.

Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers play an important role in manuscript publication. Their comments and suggestions help enhance the quality of the manuscript and contribute to academic knowledge. Therefore, potential reviewers should decline a review request if the manuscript’s research area is not within their expertise or if they are aware of any conflict of interest. Reviewers are encouraged to incorporate international recommendations into the peer review process by utilizing reporting checklists to address uneven scholarly quality in studies. They should inform the editor if they suspect that a manuscript is plagiarized from other published articles. Reviewers should provide comments and opinions based solely on their expertise without any conflicts of interest. They must not disclose information or results from any manuscript prior to its publication.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Peer Review

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential. Peer review relies on human judgment; therefore, AI tools should not be used to assist in evaluating manuscripts, as they lack critical assessment and may generate biased or inaccurate conclusions. Reviewers are responsible and accountable for the content and quality of their reviews.

Uploading manuscripts or any part of them into AI tools is strictly prohibited to protect author confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data privacy. This confidentiality also extends to review reports, which may contain sensitive information; these should not be uploaded into AI tools, even for language or readability improvements.

Arch AHS policies permit authors to use AI for language and readability enhancements during the writing process, provided that the use is disclosed in a separate section before the references. Any misconduct or misuse should be reported to the publisher.

Ethical Concerns in Human Subjects Research

When conducting research involving human participants, researchers must prioritize ethical considerations to ensure the safety, rights, and welfare of individuals involved. Below are key ethical principles that guide responsible research practices:

• Informed Consent: Researchers must provide participants with clear, comprehensive information about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, and benefits. Consent should be voluntary, and participants must fully understand what their involvement entails.
• Beneficence and Non-Maleficence: Ensuring participant well-being is paramount. Researchers should minimize potential harm while maximizing benefits. The risks of a study should always be justified by its potential value.
• Privacy and Confidentiality: Protecting the privacy of participants and ensuring the confidentiality of data is essential. Personal information must be handled securely and anonymized whenever possible.
• Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval: Before proceeding, researchers must obtain approval from an IRB or ethics committee to ensure the study meets ethical guidelines and safeguards participants' rights.
• Ethics Statement: Ethics statements must be provided in the “Materials and methods” section of the manuscripts for research conducting with humans and animals. The statements should have complete information regarding the approval (including the name of the IRB or ethics committee and the approval reference number). However, if an approval reference number is not provided, written authorization must be provided upon submission as a confidential supplemental file.
• Data Handling and Reporting: Accurate, transparent, and unbiased data reporting is vital. Researchers must avoid misrepresenting findings and protect the confidentiality of participants' information.

Corrections and Retractions

When errors are identified in published articles, the editors will consider the required actions. Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors by the publisher may be corrected by an erratum to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the published papers. However, if there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

All authors will be requested for their agreement to the content of the notice.

Sanctions

If Arch AHS becomes aware of breaches of our publication ethics policies, the following sanctions will be applied:

• Rejection of the manuscript and any other manuscripts submitted by the author(s).
• Not allowing submission for at least one year.
• Prohibition from acting as an editor or reviewer.