Editorial Policies for JHD
JHD policies ensure fairness, scientific integrity, and transparent decisions in hereditary disease publishing.
Editorial Independence and Merit-Based Review
All acceptance decisions are based on scientific quality, not author background or payment status.
JHD editorial decisions are grounded in methodological rigor, clarity of evidence, and relevance to hereditary disease science. Institutional prestige, geographic origin, and funding profile do not influence acceptance outcomes.
Editors are expected to declare conflicts and recuse themselves when impartial handling is not possible. Reviewer selection prioritizes subject expertise and methodological fit.
Quality Controls in Manuscript Assessment
Structured peer review protects reliability of published hereditary disease evidence.
Expert Match
Reviewers are selected for genetics, diagnostics, and statistical competence.
Confidentiality
Submitted content and review discussions remain confidential.
Timeliness
Review timelines are tracked with follow-up to reduce avoidable delays.
Feedback Quality
Reviews should be specific, constructive, and evidence-based.
Editors synthesize reviewer input into clear decision letters that distinguish mandatory revisions from optional improvements. This clarity improves author response quality and reduces iteration cycles.
Core Requirements for Human and Genetic Data Research
JHD enforces strict standards for ethics, consent, and data integrity.
Human studies must include ethics approvals and informed consent details. Manuscripts involving family or genomic data should describe privacy safeguards and data governance controls. Similarity screening and data consistency checks are applied during editorial evaluation.
Data fabrication, image manipulation that alters interpretation, undisclosed duplicate submission, and undisclosed conflicts are treated as serious breaches. Confirmed concerns may trigger corrections, retractions, or institutional notifications as appropriate.
Authorship changes after submission require written agreement from all listed authors and a documented rationale.
Corrections, Retractions, and Dispute Handling
JHD maintains a documented process for resolving publication record issues.
Issue Identification
Concerns are logged and reviewed by the editorial office.
Evidence Review
Editors may request data, correspondence, or institutional input.
Action Decision
Corrections, concerns, or retractions are issued when justified.
Record Update
Public metadata and article notices are synchronized for transparency.
Authors may appeal editorial decisions with a clear scientific rationale and direct response to review concerns. Appeals are assessed by independent editorial leadership to preserve fairness.
Policy updates are published periodically to align with evolving reporting standards and ethical frameworks in hereditary disease research.
Contribution and Accountability Rules
JHD requires clear attribution and accountable authorship practices.
All listed authors must have meaningful contribution to study conception, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript development. Gift authorship and undisclosed contributors are not acceptable. Requested authorship changes after submission require written approval from all authors and editorial justification review.
Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all declarations are complete and that co-authors approve final submission and revision versions.
Response to Ethical Breaches
Suspected misconduct is managed through documented investigative steps.
Evidence Collection
Editors gather source files, correspondence, and review history.
Author Clarification
Authors are asked to respond to specific concerns with supporting records.
Independent Review
Complex cases may involve additional editorial or institutional input.
Corrective Action
Corrections or retractions are issued when integrity is compromised.
How Authors Can Appeal Decisions
Appeals must provide technical rationale, not general disagreement.
Appeals should address reviewer points directly and provide new analysis or clarifying evidence where possible. Independent editorial review is used for appeal handling to preserve fairness and avoid circular decision processes.
Author-Facing Transparency
Policy clarity helps authors prepare compliant submissions.
JHD publishes policy expectations in accessible language so authors understand requirements before submission. Clear guidance on ethics, data, and disclosure improves manuscript readiness and reduces avoidable revision rounds.
Transparent policy communication also strengthens trust in editorial decision consistency.
Uniform Policy Application
Policy consistency supports fairness and predictability.
All manuscript types are evaluated under the same ethics, data, and disclosure standards, including special issues and invited content.
Consistent Enforcement
Reliability depends on consistent policy execution.
JHD applies the same integrity expectations to invited, regular, and special-issue manuscripts.
Publish Under Strong Editorial Standards
JHD policies are built to protect authors, reviewers, and the hereditary disease evidence base.
For support: [email protected]
