Journal Policies and Operations Procedures

• Peer review
• Rejections
• Reviewer’s Check List
• Editorial decisions
• Appeals
• Proofs and reprints
• Reviewing Feature Articles and Opinions
• Unlabeled use
• Content validation
• Patient consent
• Statistical analysis
• Publication ethics
• Data sharing and reproducibility
• Ethical Publishing Practices
• Plagiarism
• Misconduct

Peer Review  

Becoming a reviewer

Editors are selected either by self-nomination, in which case BHTY reviews curriculum vitaes and conducts interviews with the candidate and/or colleagues and experts in the field; or by nominations that are made from the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board whereby the same review and interview process is conducted.  BHTY seeks the experts of the highest caliber and passion for the field, and prefers candidates that possess knowledge of academic journal workflow and familiarity with the peer review process.

To become a member of the BHTY Peer Review board, please send a letter to the editor, with your CV attached, to info@partnersindigitalhealth.com. 

 

Peer review policy

All submissions are reviewed to determine if plagiarized content is contained. If so, submissions are returned to the author with comment(s), or rejected outright. The Editor-in-Chief reviews all submissions prior to peer review. Once a submission has been accepted for peer review, expert reviewers are asked to assess the technical and scientific merits of the work.

BHTY strives to ensure peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. All manuscripts and associated material submitted to BHTY remain confidential while under review. BHTY endeavors to review submission within 14 business days.

Two to three peer reviewers are assigned to each paper. If we do not possess board expertise to conduct a review, we will ask the author for suggestions for expert reviewers, and invite them to act as expert guest reviewer for the submission. This will likely delay the review process. We will inform authors to expect delays if inviting a guest reviewer is required.

BHTY Peer Review is double blind. All manuscripts submitted for publication undergo peer review.

Rejections

Submissions are rejected most often due to poor formatting, lack of substantiating claims, plagiarism, and citation manipulation. Submissions that rehash general information already in the public domain are rejected. Submissions that are commercially oriented are declined outright. Previously published materials and white papers are not acceptable unless COPE guidelines are strictly followed. For more information, please contact the managing editor with questions at info@partnersindigitalhealth.com

 

Reviewer’s check list

Reviewers are selected based on expertise in blockchain and related intersecting technologies. BHTY reviewers are expected to recuse themselves if they have a potential competing interest, including the following:

• Prior or current collaborations with the author(s) if known
• Reviewer is a direct competitor
• Reviewer may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s)
• Reviewer may profit financially from the work

When submitting a review, the Reviewer will indicate whether or not competing interests exist.

Writing the review

The purpose of the review is to provide the Editor-in-Chief and managing editor with expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript, and supply authors with clear and concise feedback on how to improve papers so that they may be acceptable for publication.

All comments are communicated to the author. Reviewers are asked to consider the following when reviewing a submission:

• What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
• Are these claims novel? If not, specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
• Are claims properly placed in the context of previous literature?
• Do results support claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
• If a protocol is provided for a randomized controlled trial, are there important deviations from it? Have authors explained why deviations occurred?
• Would other experiments or information improve the paper? Would it significantly improve the paper to do more work?
• Is the paper outstanding in its discipline? What makes it so? If not, why?
• Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
• If the paper is unsuitable for publication in its present form, is there potential to encourage the author to resubmit a revised version?

Reviewers are asked to be matter of fact, clear and concise.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?

Reviewers’ identities are anonymous.

Can authors exclude Editorial Board Reviewers or Independent Reviewers?

Authors can request to exclude a specific reviewer from reviewing their manuscript as long as the process remains objective, impartial, and a thorough assessment of the article is given. A decision letter is sent to the author when all reviews are received and considered.

Revisions

The Managing Editor and Reviewers assess revised manuscripts. Manuscripts that undergo major revision are re-reviewed. There is no guarantee of acceptance after major revision.

Editorial decisions

Revisions are generally requested if a manuscript is considered appropriate. Minor revisions are usually requested as a final step before acceptance. The managing editor and Editor-in-Chief, together, make a decision based on the reviewers' comments. 

Appeals

To appeal a decision, you can contact the Managing Editor and explain your reason(s) for the appeal. When a paper has been revised in response to the review, or when authors appeal against a decision, we ask reviewers to provide follow-up commentary.

All appeals are discussed with the Editor-in-Chief and reviewers assigned to the manuscript.  In the case of disagreement, BHTY may seek external advice on the appeal, but it is most likely the final decision will be left to the Editor-in-Chief.

Proofs and reprints

Corresponding authors of accepted submissions are sent galley proofs. Corrections should be relayed to the Managing Editor as soon as possible to facilitate publication.

Order forms for reprints will be emailed to the corresponding author if one is requested after article publication.

Reviewing Feature article and Opinion submissions

BHTY considers the following when reviewing Feature article submissions:

• Is the article relevant and of interest to an international audience?

• Does it address a global and topical subject? Will it be relevant across demographic populations? Is the article well written, clear, and easy for a non-specialist?

• Do you think the article will impact clinicians, researchers, health policymakers, or the public? Will it be widely read, disseminated, or cited? Could it improve public and/or global health? Will media outlets find it news worthy?
• Is the article accurate? Are claims evidence-based?
• Has the author missed anything important?

• Does the article contain new information warranting publication? Does it take a discussion or debate into a new direction? Does it challenge current legacies?
• Is it written in a scholarly format? Is it referenced? Will this impact the article dissemination and BHTY’s ability to obtain index status?
• If tables and figures are included, do they help the reader, or hinder topic and focus? How can they be improved?

 

Appeals

For feature/opinion articles, BHTY editorial judgment for readability and engagement is decidedly important. An appeal is less likely to overturn our decision. You are welcome to submit a detailed rebuttal letter. Only one appeal will be considered. The Editor-in Chief’s decision will be final.

 

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

Articles published by BHTY may contain information and discussions of published and/or investigational uses of devices and agents that are not indicated by the Food and Drug Administrations (FDA).  Partners in Digital Health, publisher of BHTY, does not recommend the use of any device or agent outside lawful and labeled indications.

Policy on content validation

1. All the recommendations involving clinical medicine must be based on evidence that is accepted within the profession of medicine as adequate justification for their indications and contraindications in the care of animals and patients
2. All scientific research referred to, reported, or used in a patient care recommendation must conform to accepted standards of experimental design, protocols, data collection and analysis

Patient consent

As recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (http://www.icmje.org/). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, 01/02/2018.  Available from: http://www.ICMJE.org., authors will ensure the guidelines below are followed. BHTY has quoted the text below from ICMJE Protection of Research Participants for authors to know and follow:

"Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published.

Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is usually inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the submitted article."

Statistical analyses

Ensure the methodology has been accurately described for statistical analysis. Include details and access to original data to verify results. Provide confidence levels, and define terms and symbols.  Include software used. In comparative studies, power calculations are usually required. In research manuscripts, requiring complex statistics, the advice of an expert statistician should be sought at the design/implementation stage of the study. It is appropriate to include statisticians as co-authors. Should you have further questions, please contact the managing editor.

Publication Ethics

Data sharing and reproducibility

BHTY strongly urges authors to share data to build public trust. This is a function of both research and innovation communities’ willingness to share, build, replicate, and expand the current knowledge base. Making raw data publicly available will accelerate the pace, understanding, adoption, and use, of blockchain technology. BHTY encourages all authors around the globe to openly share data for purposes of reproducibility. BHTY also asks authors and readers to share articles to encourage broadening the sector’s knowledge base.

BHTY suggests authors include a data sharing statement when making a submission explaining:

• What additional unpublished data from the study is available
• Who can access the data and how can it be obtained

BHTY encourages uploading your code at Code Ocean, a cloud-based computational reproducibility platform. We encourage you to include your code with your manuscript submission for peer review, as well as publish this code to share with all upon article acceptance.

In addition, Dryad has declared its willingness to accept medical datasets.

IP

The copyright owner retains all rights to IP, patents, and trademarks for their work(s). All rights to the owner of IP, patents and trademarks are retained by the owner. Sharing articles for professional and personal use is strongly encouraged.

Post publication discussion and corrections

BHTY encourages collegiate discourse and transparency to assist the expansion of the body of knowledge and understanding within and beyond the sector. This can only be achieved with the highest ethical principles for education and science.

Ethical Publishing Practices

Submitted manuscripts should be exclusively submitted to BHTY, with the understanding they have not been published elsewhere, in any form, and will not be submitted elsewhere, unless declined by BHTY. Authors are responsible for all statements made in the article and references cited.

Plagiarism detection

BHTY is a member CrossRef and Similarity Check, iThenticate. This is a plagiarism tool to verify originality of content. BHTY screen all manuscripts upon submission. If the editor identifies plagiarized content, the submission will be returned with comment(s), or rejected outright.

BHTY strives to abide by the guidelines and standards prescribed by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), its Code of Conduct, and its Best Practice Guidelines.

• Authors are expected to be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics specifically but not limited to, dual submission, plagiarism, manipulation of figures, competing interests, and compliance with policies on research ethics.
• Reviewers and editors are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence, and to declare competing interests.

BHTY will investigate allegations of misconduct and will contact author institutions, funders or regulatory bodies, as needed.

BHTY will follow COPE flowcharts and seek guidance as per COPE recommendations on resolving issues that may arise. Evidence of misconduct may require corrective action by issuing a correction or retraction.

Address concerns regarding misconduct to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Publisher, or Managing Editor, at info@partnersindigitalhealth.com. We will address the issue with all appropriate person(s) as soon as possible, and send responses to confirm receipt of alleged misconduct.

Additional resources on publication ethics are available from COPE, ICMJE, and WAME