Information for Authors

  • Criterion for Publication
  • BHTY Submission/Article Types
  • Editorial Review Time
  • Proofs and Invoices
  • Author Access to Data
  • Removing Authors
  • Language Editing
  • Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities 
  • Copyright and Creative Commons License
  • Embargo Policy 
  • Repository Policy, Self-archiving and Digital preservation
  • Post publication discussions and corrections
  • Transparent Peer Review (TPR) 
  • Best practices to avoid manuscript rejections
  • Journal Pillars

 

Criteria for Publication

Your manuscript submission should represent the following:

  1. Originality and practicality in the global advancement of blockchain technology and platform approaches in healthcare
  2. Importance to research, practice, innovation, or changes in the field
  3. Relevance to the BHTY audience and those with an interest in blockchain technology and platform approaches in healthcare
  4. Rigorous methodology, with conclusions justified by the evidence presented
  5. Adherence to the highest ethical standards

For complete instructions to prepare your submissions, Go To MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION.

BHTY Submission Categories/Article Types

BHTY accepts original research that has not appeared in the public domain (meaning has not been previously published in print or online). BHTY will accept manuscripts from pre-print servers. Manuscripts of interest will present original research (see descriptions below), establish advances, or failures/negative experiments utilizing evidence-based outcomes in the following categories:

  • Original Research
  • Proof of Concept/Pilots/Methodologies
  • Use Case
  • Narrative/Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis
  • *Clinical Case Studies
  • *Technical Briefs & Short Reports
  • *Editorial or Discussion

*2000 word limit not including references. Word limit for blogs is 1000.

Original Research: detailed studies reporting original research in which blockchain technology has played a significant role will be considered for peer review. This may include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications. Randomized, controlled experiments, case studies, pilot studies, and meta-analysis are examples of original research that BHTY accepts for publication. Where possible, BHTY encourages authors include information related to economic market implications. Original research should include a section on “Methods,” which details the criteria for selection and of the data presented. Original research should not exceed 10,000 words.

An example published in BHTY is:

  • DSCSA Solution Through Blockchain Technology: Drug Tracking, Tracing, and Verification at the Last Mile of the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v1.34

Proof of Concept/Pilots/Methodologies: demonstrate feasibility to verify real world application, potential value and learnings. Examples such as interoperability, system integration, API, production and deployment may be topics. If possible, BHTY asks author(s) to include examination of the economic impact the method, product or service may have on the marketplace.

Examples published in BHTY:

Use Case: this is a description of the way in which an end-user will engage with a system and describes what that system does and defines the features to be implemented and potentially, the resolution of any errors that may be encountered. Use cases are particularly valuable to the market to help explain system behaviors and process and may also provide a benchmark reporting experiential cost and complexities and can include devices or business processes.

Examples published in BHTY:

Review Article: these articles provide an overview of existing literature, with emphasis on blockchain technology, often-identifying specific problems or issues and analyzing information from available published work on the topic with a balanced perspective. Review articles can be of three types: literature reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Note: meta-analyses should be submitted as original research. In addition, authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Collection Development Guidelines. Manuscripts should be well referenced.

 Examples published in BHTY :

Clinical Case Studies: these submissions may report on clinical trials and results of controlled studies in which blockchain technology played a significant role. This can include clinical trial management processes, protocol development and approval, error reporting, quality assurance procedures, safety, privacy issues, consent, supply chain management, drug and device deployments and cost of experiments.

Technical Briefs and Short Reports: technical briefs may capture design, challenges, new technologies and applications, standards, performance analysis and optimization to communicate information obtained through a process of technical or experimental work. Actual implementation experience should be included where possible along with reports of metrics to measure components is highly recommended. 

Special Reports: encompass manuscripts that are neither reviews nor original reports of primary research. These Special Reports may include consensus statements, guidelines, statements from a reputable task force or work group, or recommendations. Submissions must be original, based upon a high level of evidence, have contemporaneous relevance to blockchain implementation, and not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions from groups must explicitly state all contributing members in developing the work including affiliations. Submitting supplemental files, and use of tables and figures to summarize critical points is strongly encouraged.

Editorial or Discussion: these may be reviews of fundamental concepts or prevalent ideas in the field of blockchain technology presenting a review of a single concept or a few related concepts, and may represent an expert opinion or point of view, alert(s) of potential problem(s), observation(s), comment(s), controversies, opinion(s) presenting a single concept or several related concepts. An editorial is typically by one author and a discussion usually includes at least two authors or more. 

Examples published in BHTY are:

Editorial Review Time

Papers submitted are subject to rigorous peer review to ensure that the research published is 'good science.' Peer review, and author revisions, are often the lengthiest part of the manuscript review process. There are no perfect papers, and most all will encounter at least 2 cycles for revisions.

Journals usually ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks. However, few journals have a mechanism to enforce the deadline, which is why it can be hard to predict how long the peer review process will take. Highly technical papers can take longer to review.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. High-quality peer review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

All manuscripts and associated material submitted to BHTY remain confidential while under review and reviewers are informed of this in their agreements, at on boarding, and throughout the review process.

Proofs, invoices, and reprints

Corresponding authors of accepted submissions are sent galley proofs with final production queries for stylistic changes and minor edits. Corrections should be relayed to the Managing Editor as soon as possible to facilitate publication. Once it is approved, if any changes are required or requested post final galley approval by the author(s) such as update versions, post publication discussion and correction (Errata and Retractions), changes to affiliation, graphs, images etc., a flat fee of $350.00 USD will be invoiced in addition to the APC. The fee will be imposed each time an author(s) makes chages after approving a final galley to post as the version of record.

The corresponding author will receive an invoice for the APC when the manuscript is accepted. Manuscripts are published only after receipt of payment. The production phase typically takes 7-14 days to resolve queries. We ask authors to facilitate turn-around to finalize proofs.

Author Access to Data

All authors should be permitted to examine the data underlying the study’s findings. For research conducted in collaboration between academic and non-academic partners, at least one author affiliated with an academic institution must have direct access to the primary dataset and be actively involved in the data analysis. For industry- or sponsor-funded studies, access to the data supporting the results must be explicitly guaranteed within the research agreement. Journal editors may request clarification regarding which authors had data access and took part in the analytical process.

Removing Authors

  1. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, the managing editor ​must receive an explanation requesting the change from all listed authors, including the author to be removed or added, in writing and signed by all.
  2. ​If authors withdraw ​a​ submitted manuscripts before publication​, all co​-authors ​must agree with the decision to withdraw a manuscript​ and submit a signed letter ​to ​t​he managing ​edi​tor.
  3. Corrections and retractions after ​publication​ may be warranted for errors of fact​. Mat​ters of debate ​i​n evolving science and methods are not errors. Retraction of published work is reserved for serious errors​ ​that invalidate results and conclusions and/or when there is scientific misconduct.

For additional information, visit Manuscript Preparation Authorhip requirements.

Language Editing 

All manuscripts must be submitted in English and meet the high-quality standards set by the journal. Writing should be clear and concise with the correct use of grammar and spelling. If you are unsure whether your manuscript meets BHTY’s requirements, we recommend asking a native English-speaking colleague to review it prior to submission. There are also agencies that can help; for example, we partner with Editage to offer a Language Editing Service. This includes a Premium Editing Service which ensures your manuscript meets BHTY’s formatting requirements and supports you in the preparation of your cover letter. Authors from economically developing countries or nations should consider registration with AuthorAid, a global research community that provides networking, mentoring, resources and training for researchers.

Eloquenti is another online service for professional proofreaders and editors. You can search freelancers based on subject matter, experience, and client ratings based on budget and timeline. Paperpal is yet another service to explore BHTY has partnered with.

Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities 

Authors are required to disclose financial and non-financial relationships and activities that might bias the interpretation of results. All BHTY manuscript submissions must include an uploaded ‘Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities’ document. For more information please visit Manuscript Preparation here.

Copyright and Creative Commons License

Authors contributing to BHTY agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This allows reuse, subject only to the use being non-commercial, and to the article being fully attributed. Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights, with first publication rights granted to Blockchain in Healthcare Today (BHTY). BHTY makes all open access articles freely available from the date of publication. 

Embargo Policy 

There are no embargos.  Abstracts of work may be presented at scientific conferences.

Repository Policy, Self-archiving and Digital preservation

Authors may deposit a copy of their paper in an institutional or other repository of their choice for the following versions, without embargo:

  • *Submitted version
  • Accepted version (author accepted manuscript)
  • Published version (version of record)

*Submitted versions may already be available on preprint servers, have undergone open peer review, and have already been assigned a DOI number. BHTY accepts these manuscript and article submissions.

Authors should note BHTY is a gold open access journal which makes research output freely and immediately available online on publication, and automatically deposits open access articles in PubMed Central (PMC). Please note that there may be an interval of a few weeks between publication and the appearance of an article in PubMed Central, depending on the time required to process the deposit.

BHTY will also correct known copies of the article in databases such as PubMed and CorssMark, but it is the author’s responsibility to update articles in institutional repositories.

Authors are encouraged to deposit the final published PDF in their institutional repository or any suitable subject repository on publication. A link to BHTY’s website is required to ensure integrity, authenticity and provenance of the scientific record, with the online published version identified as the incontrovertible version of record and include the DOI number. The Article Proof of Origin (APOO) may also be referenced.

Post publication discussions and corrections

BHTY encourages questions and debate post publication. This can be exercised as a letters to the editor, opinion piece to the journal, commentary can be posted on social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Medium or Substack. Additionally, PubPeer can be used as an external moderated site. For details, see https://pubpeer.com/static/about.

All authors are encouraged to register their article on PubPeer by posting the article DOI number and encouraging commentary. The registration link is: https://pubpeer.com/register

Mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles post publication are made on CrossMark and corresponding details may be timestamped on the blockchain.

Transparent Peer Review (TPR)

BHTY offers Transparent Peer Review as an optional alternative to traditional double-blind review. Authors may choose to publish the full peer-review history of their manuscript — including reviewer reports and author responses — alongside the final article, giving readers a clear view of the scholarly exchange.

Why TPR?
Transparent peer review strengthens trust in research, supports early-career researcher training, and promotes accountability across authors, reviewers, and editors. It also helps reduce bias, improve review quality, and increase confidence in published findings.

Benefits

  • Demonstrates rigorous peer review and provides constructive feedback
  • Encourages fairness, transparency, and thoughtful discussion
  • Helps educate early-career researchers and new editors
  • Enhances trust in medical and digital health research

How It Works

  • Authors and reviewers may opt in or out at submission
  • Authors indicate their TPR preference in the cover letter
  • If any party opts out, the review remains anonymous and double-blind
  • Reviewers may sign their reviews or remain anonymous
  • Accepted open review reports are published as Supporting Information with the article’s DOI

Notes

  • Double-blind review remains the default
  • Review materials are released only upon publication
  • TPR applies only if the author opts in and the manuscript is accepted
  • Reviews from journals not participating in TPR will not be published if a manuscript is transferred

Best Practices to avoid manuscript rejections

Be sure to select the best category for your paper. Categories for papers are below. 

  • Original Research
  • Proof of Concept/Pilots/Methodologies
  • Use Case
  • Narrative/Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis
  • Clinical Case Studies
  • Technical Briefs & Short Reports
  • Opinion, Perspective, Point of View

After you have identified your submission category, and before you begin formatting your manuscript, to ensure clarity, rigor, and optimal presentation for peer review, please review the appropriate guidance below for developing each relevant component of your paper.

A significant number of manuscript rejections result from avoidable formatting and structural issues. Articles reporting original research are generally organized using the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. For an overview of the IMRAD format, please visit https://blog.amwa.org/imrad-format-explained

For additional resources to help authors strengthen article quality and enhance the success of their submission, please see below. Should you have questions or need more guidance, please email the managing editor, John Russo, PharmD, at r.russo@partnersindigitalhealth.com

NOTE

  1. Cover Letters are REQUIRED with your manuscript submission and must contain all the elements stated on the Manuscript Preparation
  2. We strongly encourage you provide a link to where your study data is stored for reference.

What Triggers an Automatic Desk Rejection:

  1. For manuscripts claiming Original Data Collection:
  • Ethics/IRB approval number and institution (required field and verified)
  • Informed consent process description (for human subjects)
  • Data availability statement
  • Do NOT claim "original research" and mimic clinical trial reporting structure while presenting no original data, claims of multi-center data collection with no ethics approval or pre-registration
  • Do NOT submit papers about AI/ML implementation without any actual models or validation.
  1. For any manuscript claiming Prospective Study Design include:
  • Pre-registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, OSF, etc.)
  • Protocol availability or justification for absence
  1. For AI/ML prediction model papers:
  • TRIPOD-AI checklist (mandatory attachment as a supplementary file)
  • Code/model availability statement
  • Validation cohort description
  1. For all Submission Cover Letters (REQUIRED):
  • Explicit article type selection and why it qualifies as such
  • AI writing tool disclosure in the cover letter with which tools were used, the percentage of use, and what was human verified
  • Confirmation that structured abstract elements (if used) match actual study design

Red Flags for Authors and Reviewers

  • Mismatch between structured abstract format and declared article type
  • Claims of multi-center data without institutional specifics
  • "Results" sections that describe capabilities rather than measured outcomes
  • References to unpublished work
  • Excessive arXiv/preprint citations, or thesis sources
  • Grandiose claims without specificity ("significantly improved," "revolutionized," "paradigm shift") without data to support the claim
  • Perfect grammar, yet lacks semantic substance
  • No actual study population
  • No ethics approval
  • No statistical methods
  • No measured outcomes
  • "Results" section restates the hypothesis rather than reporting findings

Journal Pillars