Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics 

This page includes guidance on:


Archiving

The journal’s publisher, Sciendo, has a digital preservation arrangement with Portico to ensure that the content of its journals, including The Journal of Haemophilia Practice, will continue to be accessible in the long term, including in the situation of a catastrophic event, such as the publisher going out of business or the platform being unavailable for a significant period of time. Member libraries participating in the Portico service will be able to continue to access content in the case of such an event.


Authorship

Authorship should be based on the following four criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in its entirety.

The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors.

Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal, in the same or different language.


Complaints

As owner of The Journal of Haemophilia Practice, Haemnet encourages feedback on issues related to the journal, its staff, the editorial board or the publisher, and will address any concerns or complaints raised. All complaints will be promptly dealt with in a sensitive manner and in the strictest confidence.

Complaints should be submitted in writing to Haemnet’s Chief Executive Officer and the journal’s Managing Editor Mike Holland, who will respond within 7 days. Email: mike@haemnet.com

See also: Post-publication discussion and corrections and Research misconduct


Conflict of interest

All authors of articles submitted to The Journal of Haemophilia Practice should disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest.

Any interest or relationship, whether financial or otherwise, that might be perceived as having influenced an author’s objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest. These must be disclosed when directly relevant or directly related to the work that the authors describe in their manuscript.

Potential sources of conflict of interest include, but are not limited to, patent or stock ownership, membership of a company board of directors, membership of an advisory board or committee for a company, and consultancy for or receipt of speaker’s fees from a company.

It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to discuss this policy with all co-authors and collectively to disclose with the submission all pertinent commercial and other relationships.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not preclude publication.

Authors who have no conflict of interest to declare should also state this at submission.

Similarly, all funding sources relating to the published work should be declared in the Acknowledgments section.

Where no conflicts of interest are declared, we will add a statement to the Acknowledgments section that the authors have advised no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias.


Copyright and licensing

Copyright in all articles published in The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is retained by the authors.

Authors grant The Journal of Haemophilia Practice the right of first publication.

All articles in The Journal of Haemophilia Practice are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Authors may enter into other contractual arrangements for non-exclusive distribution of The Journal of Haemophilia Practice’s published version of their work, providing its initial publication in the Journal is acknowledged.

Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in an institutional repository or on their own website) prior to or during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges as well as positively impacting earlier and greater citation of published work.


Data sharing

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is committed to a more open research landscape. Sharing data not only supports openness, transparency and reproducibility in research, but enables more efficient research through the reuse of results and the creation of new work based on previous findings. We believe it is important for researchers to archive their data appropriately so that it is discoverable, accessible and can be used and/or cited in future research. We therefore encourage the authors who publish in our journal to share their research data, including but not limited to raw and processed data, software, algorithms, protocols and methodologies.


Ethical oversight

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states that ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, the handling of confidential data, and ethical business/marketing practices. The Journal of Haemophilia Practice’s core editorial team (Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor and Technical Editor) work together to ensure, as far as possible, the observance of ethical principles by authors as part of the publication process.

Institutional research board approval is required for all studies involving human or animal investigations and this must be detailed within the paper submitted. All research published in The Journal of Haemophilia Practice must have been conducted according to international and local guidelines on ethical research. Authors may be required to provide further information to the journal’s editorial office.

See also: Human and animal rights and Informed consent


Fees and funding

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice does not charge author fees for publication.

The journal receives corporate donations from partners in the pharmaceutical industry, who provide support on an annual or three-yearly basis.


Human and animal rights

All manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Haemophilia Practice that report on studies involving human participants or animals are required to comply with the ethical standards set out in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals of the ICJME. All studies must have been carried out within an ethical framework appropriate to the setting in which the study was conducted. If the Editors have concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected, and the Editors may contact the relevant ethics committee.

For manuscripts reporting on studies involving human participants, the authors must confirm that the study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013 (www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/) and was approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The relevant ethics committee approval should be indicated in the manuscript.

We acknowledge that studies classed as market research, surveys, guidelines, or research conducted among healthcare professionals may not require formal ethical approval in all territories.

If doubt exists as to whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the relevant review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

For manuscripts reporting on studies involving animals, the authors must confirm that institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.


Informed consent

For all studies involving human participants, authors should confirm that informed consent was obtained from those involved and described how this was obtained.

People who are reported in studies have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, dates of birth or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the person (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication.

Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable person be shown the manuscript to be submitted for publication. Authors should disclose to these participants whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the internet or in print after publication.

Each implicated individual’s consent should be written and archived with the authors. If the patient is a minor or lacks capacity to consent, the written informed consent of a parent or guardian must be given. If the person in the case study is deceased, written consent must be sought from a relative. Without consent, a case report may be considered for publication if the patient is sufficiently anonymised according to ICMJE guidelines. Nonessential identifying details should always be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity.

Consent must be mentioned in the manuscript. We reserve the right to request copies of consent documentation. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final determination of what constitutes personally identifiable information on a case-by-case basis.


ORCID

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice supports the use of ORCID identification to facilitate the accurate attribution of individuals to publications and research outputs. All authors are encouraged to provide an ORCID iDs when submitting a manuscript to the journal.


Peer review

Manuscripts submitted to The Journal of Haemophilia Practice are usually assessed by two reviewers in addition to the journal’s editor-in-chief. The peer review process is handled through the journal’s ScholarOne portal.

Peer reviewers are invited to assess individual manuscripts based on their expertise – subject experts are matched with the subject matter presented in the manuscripts received. Reviewers are asked to assess manuscript critically and constructively, and to provide their expert opinion on a) whether or not a manuscript is suitable for publication, and b) where they think revisions or further work is required. Reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed feedback that enables authors to pinpoint how and where manuscripts require or would benefit from improvement. The decision on whether or not to publish ultimately lies with the editor-in-chief.

Avoidance of bias

Reviews are conducted on a ‘double blind’ basis to ensure, as far as possible, that there is no bias. Copies of manuscripts that are sent out to peer reviewers do not include any personal identifying information on the authors, vice versa when reviewer feedback is sent to the authors. The names of manuscript authors and peer reviewers are never disclosed to each other.

We understand that bias can be positive or negative. Among the authors of papers published in The Journal of Haemophilia Practice are the editor-in-chief, the managing editor, and numerous members of our editorial board. The same rules around peer review are applied to authors who are directly associated with the journal as those who are not. Individuals outside of the immediate editorial team may be involved in managing the peer review process if appropriate.

Review decisions

Peer reviewers are asked to provide one of four recommendations: Accept, Major Revision, Minor Revision, or Reject.

On the rare occasion that reviewers fundamentally disagree on a manuscript (i.e. one rejects the manuscript and one accepts), the issue is referred in the first instance to the journal’s editor-in-chief and discussed among the editorial team. The manuscript may be sent out for peer review a second time on the same basis (double blind, two reviewers) to ascertain whether consensus can be reached. The final decision lies with the editor-in-chief.

In cases where major revisions are advised, The Journal of Haemophilia Practice has a policy of working with authors to improve manuscripts (see Writing support).

Submission of revisions

In practice, manuscripts are rarely accepted in their original form. Where reviewers recommend publication with revisions, either major or minor, authors are invited to submit a revised version of their manuscript to the journal via its ScholarOne portal, accompanied by their response to points raised by the reviewers.

The revised manuscript will be assessed by the editorial team and may go back to peer review.

Timescales for peer review

We aim to begin the peer review process within seven days of receipt of manuscript via The Journal of Haemophilia Practice’s ScholarOne portal. Peer reviewers have two weeks to accept an invitation to review and are asked to return their feedback within four weeks. This process is not failsafe and sometimes, unavoidably, it can take longer. However, we generally aim to complete the peer review process in six to eight weeks.

Appeals

If you believe an error has been made in reaching a decision about your manuscript, please address your concerns to the Managing Editor in the first instance: email mike@haemnet.com. Your appeal should include a detailed statement justifying why you think a mistake has been made and how you intend to address specific criticisms raised by peer reviewers or members of the editorial team during the review process. Appeal decisions will be made by the Editor-in-Chief in liaison with members of the editorial team and/or the journal’s Editorial Board as appropriate. After receipt of an appeal, we will aim to advise on whether your manuscript will be reconsidered within two weeks.


Post-publication discussion, corrections and retractions

Post-publication discussion

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice welcomes post-publication comment and debate through letters to the editor, which may be published on the journal’s website.

Letters should be addressed to the journal’s Managing Editor, Mike Holland: mike@haemnet.com

Corrections 

Corresponding authors receive a proof of their article prior to publication in order to confirm the accuracy of the text and data, or to suggest modifications. Once articles are published, they should remain unaltered to the maximum extent possible. We accept, however, that honest errors are a part of science and publishing, and that there may be a need to publish corrections when errors are detected. Our policy on corrections and retractions is aligned with the recommendations of the ICJME.

Authors and readers are encouraged to notify the editors of errors in published articles at the earliest opportunity, especially in the case of errors that could affected the interpretation of data or information presented.Notification of errors should be reported to the Managing Editor: mike@haemnet.com.

When errors are reported, action will be taken immediately or as soon as possible after notification.

Where corrections are required, action will be taken as follows:

The journal will publish a correction note detailing the changes. This will consist of an electronic numbered page, which will be included in the journal table of contents and will include a citation and link to the article concerned.

The journal will publish an amended version of the article, including details of the changes from the original version and the date on which the changes were made.

The journal will archive the previous version of the article, along with a note that an amended version of the article has been published. The archived version will not be directly accessible but can be made available on request.

Retractions

Where errors are serious enough to invalidate results and conclusions, articles may require retraction.

Where an article is retracted, a retraction note will be published on an electronic numbered page included in the journal table of contents. This will cite the original article and include an explanation as to why the article has been retracted.

Retraction with republication (i.e. a replacement article) may be considered in cases where errors lead to a major change in the direction or significance of the results, interpretations or conclusions presented, but are judged to be unintentional and the underlying science appears valid. In this case, the changed version of the article will be submitted for further review. If, after review, publication is recommended, the article will be republished with an explanation and with reference to the extent of the changes.


Publication schedule

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is published on a continuous basis throughout the year. Volumes usually run from January to December. There is no fixed schedule for the publication of individual papers.


Research misconduct

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is committed to ensuring, as far as possible, the integrity of all the papers it publishes. Our policy on questionable research practices is aligned with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

All submissions are subject to screening for plagiarism with iThenticate CrossCheck software, and editors, peer reviewers and third parties are encouraged to raise concerns related to research misconduct.

Concerns may include but are not limited to

  • Data fabrication – The intentional misrepresentation of research data through made-up findings, recording or reporting, including image manipulation
  • Data falsification – The manipulation of research materials, equipment or processes, including omitting and/or changing data
  • Plagiarised research
  • Inappropriately attributed authorship
  • Peer review manipulation – Preventing or inappropriately influencing the assessment of a manuscript by an independent peer

Concerns should be addressed in the first instance to the journal’s Managing Editor, Mike Holland: mike@haemnet.com.

Where there is evidence to support concerns raised or claims of alleged misconduct at any stage in the publication process, these will be investigated in an appropriate and timely manner. Investigations will be conducted in line with established processes such as those outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Where it is not possible for the journal’s publishing team to conduct an investigation (e.g. in relation to data fabrication, authorship issues, unethical research), we will request the assistance of relevant research institutions, employers, funders and/or statutory bodies.

Where the integrity of a paper published in The Journal of Haemophilia Practice is later called into question, it will be withdrawn until such time as integrity has been confirmed. Any published paper found to include questionable or falsified research will be withdrawn.

While respecting author confidentiality, we support the sharing of information among editors-in-chief (EICs) where this is a necessary part of our obligation to prevent and respond to allegations of research misconduct. The journal’s EIC will collaborate and share effort in the investigation of any cases of suspected misconduct where appropriate. Disclosure will only be made to EICs who may have information pertinent to the case.


Writing support

The Journal of Haemophilia Practice has a policy of supporting authors who are non-native English speakers, those who are not skilled writers, and those who are new to academic writing. This includes:

Support for authors to revise manuscripts identified by the editor-in-chief as being of merit but in need of immediate revision prior to peer review

Support for authors to revise manuscripts identified in peer review as not yet suitable for publication but where the reviewers or the editor-in-chief believe the subject matter to be of merit.