Publication ethics

  To ensure high ethical and professional standards, AHSTR adheres to the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect all authors, reviewers, and editors to strictly adhere to these ethical principles to maintain the integrity and validity of scientific research. AHSTR explicitly prohibits research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification. The AHSTR strictly prohibits multiple submissions and citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation or 'citation rings' designed to artificially inflate metrics. All listed authors must meet the criteria for authorship by making substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. Gift, ghost, or guest authorship constitutes ethical misconduct.

  The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) holds the final responsibility for determining which submitted articles should be approved for publication. Decisions are guided by editorial board recommendations and rigorous peer reviews.

Complaints and Appeals:

• Process: Email the Editorial Office with the Manuscript ID and a detailed rationale.
• Resolution: The EiC or an independent committee will investigate confidentially.
• Outcome: Decisions are final and communicated within 45 days.

Originality and Accuracy: Manuscripts must be original and not published elsewhere. AHSTR uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism (Threshold: <25% overlap).

Copyright & Permissions: Authors must obtain written permission from the copyright holder to reproduce any previously published figures or tables. The source must be explicitly cited in the corresponding figure caption or table footnote.

Disclosure and Transparency: All manuscripts must include:

Use of AI and AI-Assisted Tools: The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools should align with the established norms of the author's specific study field. Generally, these tools should be utilized to enhance the manuscript's linguistic quality, readability, and formatting, or to support discipline-specific technical workflows. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the entire work. If AI tools are employed, authors must:

• Ensure the tool maintains data confidentiality and the provider claims no rights to the work.
• Manually verify all content for accuracy and bias
• Do not mimic real people, brands, or protected intellectual property.
• Disclose the use of AI in a section titled "Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies" at the end of the manuscript, just before the References. 

  To maintain the highest standards of transparency and academic integrity, AHSTR requires both editors and reviewers to strictly adhere to shared ethical duties regarding confidentiality, conflict of interest, and objectivity:

• Confidentiality, Social Media, and PR: Under our single-blind peer review process, all unpublished materials, data, arguments, and reviewer identities must be treated as privileged and strictly confidential. Editors and reviewers are explicitly prohibited from sharing, discussing, or disclosing any details of the manuscript, the review process, or the final peer-review outcomes on social media, public relations (PR) channels, blogs, or personal networks. Using any unpublished content for personal gain, or citing it without the written author's consent, is strictly forbidden.
• Conflicts of Interest: Both parties are obligated to immediately recuse themselves from the evaluation process if any personal, professional, financial, or competitive conflicts of interest arise that could compromise their impartiality.
• Objectivity and Scholarly Rigor: Publication decisions and reviews must remain strictly objective, focusing on the manuscript’s original contribution to the field, clarity of argument, and the reliability of the evidence.
• Vigilance Against Fraud and Overlaps: Reviewers and editors serve as critical guardians of scholarly rigor. In addition to identifying missing citations or potential overlaps with previously published works, they must actively evaluate the validity of the bibliography. Reviewers are expected to be vigilant against citation manipulation, checking for "fake/hallucinative references," fabricated sources, or irrelevant self-citations designed to artificially inflate metrics. Any suspicions of academic misconduct must be reported immediately to the editorial board.

  Authors are encouraged to share raw data, code, and materials via public repositories (e.g., Zenodo, Dryad). AHSTR reserves the right to request raw data during peer review.

• • Copyright: Authors transfer copyright to AHSTR upon acceptance.
• • Licensing: Published under CC BY-NC 4.0 (Non-commercial reuse with attribution).

  Research Integrity and Misconduct: To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, AHSTR employs a rigorous framework for detecting misconduct, utilizing Turnitin and expert peer review to prevent plagiarism and ethical breaches. The journal encourages authors, reviewers, and readers to report any suspicions of misconduct proactively. All allegations are managed in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, ensuring a confidential and comprehensive investigation by the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

  Investigation Process and Disciplinary Action: During an ethical investigation, authors are provided a formal opportunity to respond to the presented evidence. If the inquiry confirms research misconduct, AHSTR will take appropriate and decisive action following COPE guidelines Depending on the severity of the infraction, this may include issuing a Correction, an Erratum, an Expression of Concern, or a formal Retraction Conversely, if allegations are found to be unsubstantiated, the case will be dismissed, and all involved parties will be notified immediately. This balanced process ensures strict transparency while firmly protecting researchers' rights.

  Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections: AHSTR fosters ongoing scholarly disccusion by welcoming "Letters to the Editor" and constructive critiques of published work. If errors are discovered post-publication, the journal will rectify the public record using specific amendments based on the nature and impact of the error:

• Correction Issued for minor, clerical, or technical errors that do not affect the overall interpretation, discussion, or conclusions of the original article. This includes fixing misspellings, typos, or minor mathematical/formatting errors (excluding any changes to the author list). Depending on the nature of the fix, a Correction may undergo a brief re-peer review strictly at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
• Erratum Issued for significant, inadvertent errors that tend to affect the scientific interpretation, discussion, or core conclusions of the original article. The updated manuscript must undergo formal re-peer review, ideally by the same reviewers who evaluated the original submission, before the amendment is approved and published.
• Retraction In extreme cases of serious ethical breaches, verified data manipulation, or fundamental errors that completely invalidate the research findings, a formal Retraction will be issued strictly in accordance with COPE guidelines to maintain the integrity of the scientific

To report ethical concerns, potential misconduct, or for any inquiries regarding our policies, please contact the AHSTR Editorial Office.