•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics Statement

JOHS is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity. The journal adheres to the Core Practices of COPE and expects all parties involved in the publishing process—authors, reviewers, editors, and institutional partners—to uphold these standards.

Conflicts of Interest

JOHS follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure transparency and integrity throughout the publication process.

Author Disclosures

All authors are required to complete and submit the official ICMJE Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest at the time of manuscript submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have completed the form.

Editorial Team Disclosures

The Editor-in-Chief, associate editors, and editorial board members are required to declare conflicts of interest to identify any professional, financial, or personal relationships that could influence editorial judgment. Editors notify the Editorial Operations Manager if a new potential conflict arises.

These disclosures are maintained confidentially by the Editorial Operations Manager and reviewed before any editor is assigned to handle manuscripts. The Editorial Operations Manager maintains an internal log of current declarations, including the date received and any noted conflicts. If a potential conflict exists, the editor is not assigned related submissions. These internal records are available for review by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Disclosures

Peer reviewers are asked to disclose potential conflicts of interest on a per-manuscript basis when invited to review. Reviewers who have current or recent collaborations, institutional ties, or other relationships that could bias their evaluation are expected to decline the invitation. Reviewer disclosures and recusals are documented by the Editorial Operations Manager.

Recusal and Independent Handling

If any editor, including the Editor-in-Chief, associate editor, or editorial board member, has a potential or perceived conflict of interest related to a submitted manuscript, that individual will be recused from all editorial decision-making for that manuscript. The Editorial Operations Manager will assign the submission to another associate editor, or when appropriate, an independent editor with no competing interests, to ensure objective peer review and decision-making. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest with a submission, the journal will designate an independent editor to manage the peer review process and make the final publication decision. Recused editors do not participate in reviewer selection, peer review correspondence, or final decisions.

All recusals and reassignments are documented internally by the Editorial Operations Manager to ensure transparency and accountability. When applicable, an editorial note may accompany the published article to indicate that the manuscript was handled independently of the Editor-in-Chief.

Handling of Misconduct Allegations

JOHS welcomes good-faith concerns regarding its editorial practices, publication ethics, or research integrity. Concerns should be submitted in writing to johs@utk.edu.

Allegations of academic misconduct, including but not limited to plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, image manipulation, or ethical violations in research will be taken seriously and investigated promptly and fairly. When potential misconduct is identified:

  • The editorial team will initiate a confidential inquiry, consistent with COPE guidelines.
  • The authors will be given an opportunity to respond to concerns.
  • The editorial team will issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the outcome.
  • The editorial team will notify institutions, funders, or relevant bodies when appropriate.

All retraction, correction, and expression of concern decisions follow the COPE Retraction Guidelines and Flowcharts. Each complaint is reviewed confidentially and recorded for accountability. Concerns are referred as appropriate to the Editor-in-Chief and, when necessary, to institutional or independent advisors. Outcomes are communicated to the complainant in accordance with confidentiality and COPE guidance.

Retraction notices will state the reason for retraction and who is retracting the article, and will remain permanently linked to the original publication.

If a complainant believes the matter remains unresolved, JOHS may refer it for independent review by an external ethics or advisory body designated by the journal.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

JOHS welcomes responsible scholarly dialogue following publication. Readers who identify potential errors, ethical concerns, or interpretive questions are encouraged to contact the Editorial Operations Manager at johs@utk.edu. Correspondence raising substantive issues may be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, when appropriate, shared with the authors for response or considered for publication as a Letter to the Editor.

All post-publication concerns are evaluated in accordance with the COPE Core Practices. When corrections, clarifications, or retractions are warranted, JOHS issues a formal notice—clearly labeled and permanently linked to the original article—to preserve the transparency and integrity of the scholarly record.

Ethical Expectations for Authors

Authors must affirm that their work is original, ethically conducted, and accurately reported. All submissions must:

  • Disclose all conflicts of interest / competing interests (see Manuscript Preparation Guidelines).
  • Attribute all sources appropriately.
  • Include statements of ethical approval and informed consent (when applicable).

JOHS defines ethical unacceptability based on established research ethics frameworks, including COPE guidelines and relevant institutional review standards. Submission of a manuscript to JOHS implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that appropriate ethical review and approval have been obtained before conducting the research.

For human research, authors must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and any applicable institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee requirements. For animal research, authors must comply with legal and field-specific standards, including the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). JOHS also requires adherence to ARRIVE guidelines and Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching for reporting animal research.

Information regarding research ethics must be stated at an appropriate point in the manuscript. JOHS does not accept submissions that fail to meet recognized ethical standards.

To preserve independence and avoid editorial endogeny, no more than ~15% of articles in any calendar year will be authored/co-authored by JOHS editors or board members.

Advertising and Sponsorship

JOHS does not accept advertising, sponsorship, or commercial reprints. Editorial content is published solely on the basis of scholarly merit, free from financial influence.

Use of AI Tools by Authors

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI or automated tools in the creation of submitted work, specifying the tool used and the nature of its contribution. AI tools may not be listed as authors and must not be used to generate, alter, or fabricate data. Authors remain fully responsible for the integrity, originality, and accuracy of their work. For more information, see Information For Authors.

Reviewer and Editorial Responsibilities

All reviewers and editors are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript materials.
  • Recuse themselves from handling work when a real or perceived conflict of interest exists.
  • Report any suspected misconduct or ethical concerns to the editorial office promptly.

Associate editors may or may not also serve as members of the JOHS Editorial Board. Regardless of formal title, all editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest / competing interests annually and when handling individual submissions.

When an associate editor or editorial board member is an author on a submission, or has any other conflict of interest, they are excluded from all editorial decision-making for that manuscript. In such cases, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the submission to an independent editor or guest editor with no conflicts of interest. This ensures that all manuscripts authored by editors or board members undergo the same rigorous and impartial review process as all other submissions.

The editorial board operates independently, and all decisions are made without interference from the journal’s host institution, funders, or external parties. JOHS follows the guidance of COPE in all cases involving disputed authorship, redundant publication, data falsification, ethical violations, or appeals of editorial decisions.

Peer Review Policy

  • JOHS conducts double-blind peer review for all research submissions.
  • Reviewer identities and author identities are concealed from each other.
  • Reviewer identities are not published, and reviews are not posted publicly.
  • All reviewers must declare conflicts of interest / competing interests before accepting assignments.
  • Exceptions to double-blind review will be clearly stated in the published article.

Use of AI Tools in Peer Review and Editorial Decision-Making

JOHS prohibits the use of generative AI tools or automated systems to conduct peer review, make editorial recommendations, or process confidential manuscript content. Reviewers and editors must personally assess all manuscripts and are responsible for the confidentiality, integrity, and originality of their evaluations. Inputting any manuscript content or reviewer comments into AI tools without prior approval is considered a breach of confidentiality and may result in removal from the reviewer or editorial pool.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the associate editor based on their expertise in the subject area. The Editorial Operations Manager may assist in identifying qualified reviewers, but the final selection decision rests with the associate editor.

Scope of Review

The peer review process applies to all article types unless otherwise specified. Editorials, letters, and invited commentaries may be reviewed solely by the editorial team for accuracy, relevance, and adherence to ethical standards. Supplemental material is reviewed at the discretion of the associate editor.

Decision-Making

Following receipt of reviewer reports, the associate editor makes a recommendation to the Editorial Operations Manager, who coordinates revisions and ensures completion of the review process. Final acceptance decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief.