Publication Ethics Statement

Publication Ethics

This page outlines ethical standards, responsibilities, and expectations for authors, editors, and reviewers of HMC.

Peer Review Process

HMC follows a double-anonymized peer review process, normally obtaining at least two independent reviews for research articles, reviews, and case manuscripts. Reviewers are drawn from the Editorial Board or from qualified subject-matter experts. Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief (or designate, Special Issue Editor, or Associate Editor). The journal adheres to recognized frameworks including the COPE Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations.

Reviews are expected within 45 days, though timing may vary.

Authorship and Contributions

Authorship credit is based on substantial contributions to conception or design of the work, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, drafting or revising the manuscript, and final approval. Authors must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

HMC requires authors to provide a CRediT contribution statement.

Originality and Text Reuse

Manuscripts must be original. HMC screens all submissions with iThenticate prior to peer review. Plagiarism, duplicate publication, and data fabrication are not permitted.

Authors may deposit preprints or accepted manuscripts in institutional or subject repositories, with citation to the published version.
Limited text reuse from the author’s own prior work may be acceptable if properly cited and not excessive.
Reuse of material from previously published sources is permitted only with documented permission from the rights holder. A clear credit line must accompany reused content. Some publishers (e.g., Taylor & Francis, Wiley, Sage) allow this when formal permission is obtained.

Use of Generative AI Tools

This policy reflects community best practices (including guidance from COPE and other major scholarly publishers) but is tailored specifically for HMC.

Generative AI systems (including large language models such as ChatGPT) are not eligible to be listed as authors. Authorship requires responsibility and ownership of the scholarly work, which cannot be assigned to non-human tools.

If AI tools are used in any stage of the research or writing process, this use must be disclosed. Authors should note such use in the Methods section when relevant, and in all cases include a statement in the Acknowledgments or as a footnote to clarify how the tool was employed.

Conflicts of Interest & Funding

Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could be viewed as influencing the work. Funding sources must be acknowledged. HMC accepts ICMJE conflict-of-interest forms. Editors and reviewers must also declare conflicts that could affect their evaluation.

Data Availability & Research Ethics

Authors should include a statement on data availability. Data should be shared in repositories where possible, provided ethical and legal standards are maintained. Research involving humans or animals must state approval by an institutional review board or ethics committee, with details provided in the manuscript.

Corrections, Retractions & Appeals

HMC follows COPE Guidance for handling corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions. Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed rationale to the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final.

Review & Decision Timeline

Initial editorial checks occur within two weeks. Peer review typically concludes within 45 days. Authors receive decisions of accept, revise, or reject, along with reviewer feedback.

Archiving & Preservation

HMC content is preserved through the UCF STARS repository, LOCKSS/CLOCKSS, and web archiving (e.g., the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine). Authors are encouraged to deposit accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories with citation to the published version.

Contact

Questions about ethics or concerns about misconduct? Contact the Editor-in-Chief.