Publication Ethics 
JHSU follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in addressing all aspects of publication ethics, particularly how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct. JHSU adopts the COPE principles to meet high ethical standards for publishers, editors, authors, and reviewers. As an essential issue, publication ethics need to be explained clearly to improve the quality of research worldwide. In this section, we explain the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors 
1. Authors should comply with the ethical guidelines adopted by JHSU when writing and submitting their reports. Authors must be aware that any unethical practices could lead to severe consequences, including the retraction of published articles or even being banned from publishing in this journal. 
2. Authors must be aware of the full contents of the submitted manuscripts. The presented data should be accurate and free from fabrication and fraud. 
3. Authors must ensure the originality of the report. JHSU does not accept manuscripts or any parts of manuscripts that have been previously published or are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Please see the journal’s policy regarding Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers. 
4. Authors must ensure that their original report is free from plagiarism. Authors are advised to maintain the similarity index of their manuscript at no more than 15%. 
5. Authors should do their best to ensure the availability of the underlying data. Editors or reviewers may request raw data from authors during evaluation. Authors are encouraged to make their underlying data publicly available through an institutional or subject-based data repository. The exception is made for the private data of the research subjects, which are meant to be kept confidential by the authors. 
6. Authors should disclose any competing interests and their funding sources in separate sections (see Instruction to Authors). Authors must ensure that the funders do not have a role in designing the experiment or interpreting its results. 
7. Authors must notify editors regarding the incorrectness and inaccuracies of their manuscript before publication for immediate correction. However, authors also have responsibilities to report significant errors or inaccuracies in their own work that are observed in post-publication to the Journal or the Editor-in-Chief.

In response, the journal will release an erratum for the correction(s) or retract the article following consultation with the editor-in-chief, handling editor, and reviewers.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors 
1. Editors must comply with COPE practices in judging and making decisions on submitted manuscripts. 
2. Editors shall judge the submitted manuscripts based on the academic merits (such as novelty, originality, scientific correctness, and readability) and their relevance to the scope of the JHSU. Discriminatory behaviors based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation are not permissible during the editorial process. 
3. Editors’ decisions should not be affected by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The decision to accept should be supported by the reviewers' recommendations. 
4. Editors are responsible for informing authors regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. 
5. Editors should treat the submitted manuscript with full confidentiality and prevent the information contained in the manuscript from being disclosed to parties having no role in the evaluation and publication processes. 
6. Editors must respect the author’s request not to invite certain reviewers with objective considerations.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers 
Reviewers hold a critical role in maintaining the quality of papers published in our journals. Prior to publication, each submitted manuscript should undergo a peer-review process by two independent reviewers, ideally, invited by the editors based on their expertise, suitability, and professional track record in the manuscript's subject area. Once reviewers are appointed, they are bound to the following ethical responsibilities: 
1. The primary responsibility of reviewers is to perform objective adjudication on the submitted manuscript based on scientific merit and publication standards. 
2. Documents sent to the reviewers for peer review shall be treated as confidential. 
3. Reviewers should respect the double-masked peer-review policy adopted by the journal. Reviewers must not disclose their identity to the authors during the evaluation process. 
4. In making review reports, reviewers should give their best in explaining their suggested points point by point to the authors. 
5. Reviewers are expected to submit their reports in a timely manner and are encouraged to reach out to the handling editor if extra time is needed to evaluate the manuscript. 
6. Reviewers must notify editors when any scientific and ethical misconduct is found in the experiment or in the manuscript. These include the indication of plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation.

Conflicts of Interests 
For all types of submission. Authors must indicate whether or not there is a financial relationship between them and the organization that sponsored the research. This note should be added in a separate section, previous to the reference list. If no conflict exists, authors should state so.

 See the details in the Instructions to Authors. 
A conflict of interest may also emerge during the manuscript evaluation, disrupting the fair play process. To anticipate, editors are prevented from handling manuscripts whose authors 
are from the same institution as them, or by research collaborators, or co-authors, or competitors. In such a case, another editor will be appointed to handle the manuscript. Similarly with the reviewers who are obliged to refrain from evaluating manuscripts authored by individuals from their own institution, or by research collaborators, or co-authors, 
or competitors. Reviewers should promptly notify the handling editor of the possible conflict of interest and return the manuscript.

Ethical Approval Requirements 
Any experiment involving human or animal subjects must obtain ethical clearance from the institutional review board or ethics committee before the experiment. Infringement 
This policy may be regarded as research misconduct.

Human Subjects 
The appropriate ethics committee should have approved all human studies and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 
Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be clearly stated in the text that all participants provided informed consent before their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of 
The subjects under study should be omitted. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements.

Animal Subjects 
Reviewers and editors are advised to refer to the ARRIVE checklist when assessing manuscript reporting experiments using animal models. When using animal models in experiments, authors should comply with the commonly accepted '3Rs': (1) Replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible; (2) Reduction in the number of animals used; And (3) refinement of experimental conditions and procedures to minimize the harm to animals.

During the experiment, authors are advised to refer to the following international guidelines: 
1. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes (See here) 
2. The Scientific Basis for Regulation of Animal Care and Use by American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (See here) 
3. EU regulations on animal research (See here) 

Reproducing Published Material from Other Publishers: Authors must obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables, or any extract of a text) that does not fall into the public domain or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested from the copyright holder (usually the Publisher; please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyright holder).

Permission is required for: 
1. Your works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright. 
2. Substantial extracts from anyone's works or a series of works. 
3. Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes, and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified. 
4. Photographs for which you do not hold copyright. 
5. Permission is not required for: 
6. Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please note that in this case, you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...". 
7. Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission. 
8. Graphs, charts, schemes, and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission. 

Obtaining Permission 
To avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Manuscripts containing materials from other publications without permission cannot be published in JHSU.  The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgment to be followed; otherwise, follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure, or Scheme.

Publication Misconducts 
Publication misconducts include data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship. These terms are defined as follows: 
Terms Definition 
1. Fabrication: Any activity involving the creation of false information about non-existing data or findings. 

2. Falsification: Artificial manipulation of the research materials/equipment/process or random modification/deletion of data resulting in misleading interpretation. 

3. Plagiarism: Any activity of pirating others’ ideas, research contents, and research results without obtaining justifiable approvals or giving proper credits. 

4. Improper authorship: Inclusion of a person as an author who has contributed inadequately to research or manuscript writing.

In Case of Research and Publication Misconducts 
Editors, in collaboration with reviewers, maintained the accuracy and integrity of the journal's published content. In addressing the misconduct allegation, editors will follow the COPE guidelines, including investigating the allegation. During the editorial or peer-review process, manuscripts found to have committed misconduct will be rejected. After publication, editors should retract papers proven to have committed such misconduct by issuing a notification stating that the paper has been retracted, along with the investigation results. Another sanction for committing scientific misconduct is a restriction on publishing in JHSU for a certain period, at the discretion of the editorial board and the journal.

Any allegation will be entertained by the editorial board and investigated for validity, including its consistency with the definition of research misconduct. Investigation is also extended to seek the possible presence of conflicts of interest from the individual(s) reporting the allegation. If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions with which the authors have affiliations should conduct their own investigation into the allegations of scientific misconduct. The responsibility of maintaining and guaranteeing the accuracy of the scientific contents of published articles is shared among the authors, journals, and institutions. Actions taken by the journal include corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions of the alleged article. Through this action, JHSU continues to uphold its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.