• Logo
  • HamaraJournals

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Frontiers in Health Informatics (formerly known as Iranian Journal of Medical Informatics) is an on-line English peer-reviewed journal for practitioners, researchers and students who are interested in the field of medical informatics and information technology in healthcare sectors. The Editor welcomes original articles on current practice, research projects or the development of new resources or services. Review articles are also welcome. The scope of the journal encompasses (but is not restricted to):

- Information systems, including national or international registration systems, hospital information systems, departmental and/or physician's office systems, document handling systems, electronic medical record systems, standardization, systems integration etc.;

- Library and information sciences;

- Image Processing, including new algorithm development to detect lesions or diagnose diseases, implement or modify methods or algorithms etc;

Seslendirme

- Computer-aided medical decision support systems using heuristic, algorithmic and/or statistical methods as exemplified in decision theory, protocol development, artificial intelligence, etc.;

- Health Information Management and Health Information Technology;

- Educational computer based programs;

- Health technology assessment;

- Other related fields;

From time to time the Editor may decide that a particular issue should be devoted to a single theme or topic and guest editors will be asked to review a range of papers relating to that theme or topic. Please read the instructions carefully for details on the submission of manuscripts, the journal's requirements and standards as well as information concerning the procedure after a manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Section Policies

Research Articles

Research articles should be included Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion and conclusion sections, and should not exceed 3000-5000 words (exclude references, abstract, tables, illustrations). The abstract is limited to 250-300 words.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

The journal will accept literature reviews and systematic reviews. These are subject to 10000 word limit (including all references, abstract, tables, illustrations). The abstract should not exceed 250-300 words.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letter To Editor

Generally 1500 words (exclude references) is ideal, with one diagram or figure.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Inovation in Health Informatics

Inovation in Health Informatics follow the same structure as research papers. However, instead of methods and results, there should be Development and Application sections (Introduction, Development, Application, Discussion, Conclusion). They should not exceed 2,000 words and six diagrams or illustrations. The abstract is limited to at most 300 words. 

The development section should describe the generic type of technology, i.e. how it was developed and the barriers/technical challenges that had to be overcome to develop it. The application of the technology section should describe the context in which the pilot application or other technology should be used and give any early feedback about its use. Even limited real world data is useful in this section. Wherever possible, a link to a demonstration website should be provided.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Peer review helps editors select reasonable original copies, in any case, the editor settles on an official choice with respect to all the substance. Choices might be made by issues irrelevant to the nature of an original copy, for example, appropriateness for the journal. The editor can dismiss any article whenever before distribution, including after acknowledgment whether concerns emerge about the uprightness of the work.

Manuscripts chose for companion audit will be refereed by at any rate two commentators amid about a month as indicated by explicit research detailing rules for various investigation structures; Authors better send their updated original copies inside about fourteen days and if the reexamined adaptation isn't transferred inside 2 months, the accommodation will be documented.

- Reviewers' and creators' personalities are kept secret.

- The presence of a submitted composition isn't uncovered to anybody other than the commentators and publication staff.

- Reviewers are required to keep original copies and their data private.

- They should not utilize information of the original copy before its production for their own advantages.

- The analysts' remarks ought to be productive, legit, and obliging.

- Reviewers ought to pronounce their irreconcilable situations and decrease audit if a contention exists. Knowing the author(s) must not influence their remarks and choice.

Publication Frequency

Manuscripts can be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

Open Access Policy

This journal gives prompt open access to its substance on the rule that creation look into unreservedly accessible to the open backings a more prominent worldwide trade of information. All articles published by Front Health Inform are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. This means:

  • everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published in Front Health Inform journal;
  • everyone is free to re-use the published material if proper accreditation/citation of the original publication is given.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Indexing

The journal is indexed in the followings: MagIran, Google Scholar, IndexCopernicus, Barkat Knowledge Network System, EBSCO, Research Bible, DRJI, DOAJ, CIVILICA, World Cat and Islamic World Science Citation (ISC).

Ethics and Malpractice

Peer-reviewed articles published in FHI support and embody the scientific methods. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewers, the publisher and the society sponsoring the journal.The FHI is committed to following best practices on publication ethics. The following policies is based mainly on the Core Practices from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Publication and Authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Editor in Chief.
  • The factors that are taken into account in review are originality, relevance, readability, statistical validity and language.
  • The possible decisions include rejection, major revision, minor revisions or acceptance.
  • Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  • If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  • No paper can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal, in another journal or conference.
  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Authors' Responsibilities
Authors must guarantee that their manuscript is their original work.

  • Authors must guarantee that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal or conference.
  • All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Authors are forced to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must guarantee that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  • Authors must participate in the peer review.
  • Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  • Authors cannot withdraw their articles after acceptance or publishing.

Responsibility for the Reviewers in Peer Review
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in minimum 500 words.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
  • Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  • Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Editorial Responsibilities
Editors and Editor in Chief have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

  • Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  • Editors publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  • Editors do not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  • Editors guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  • Editors guarantee that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
  • Editors have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
  • Editors base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, clarity, relevance and originality to publication's scope.
  • Editors do not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
  • Editors always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  • Editors do not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
  • Editors act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  • Editors only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  • Editors do not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have an important reason.

Publishing Ethics Issues
All editorial members and authors must publish any kind of correction honestly and completely.

  • Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
  • Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article before acceptance or publishing.

Plagiarism policy

The journal is strictly against any unethical act of copying or plagiarism in any form. Plagiarism is said to have occurred when large portions of a manuscript have been copied from existing previously published resources. All manuscripts submitted for publication to FHI are cross-checked for plagiarism using iThenticate software. Manuscripts found to be plagiarized during initial stages of review are out-rightly rejected and not considered for publication in the journal. In case a manuscript is found to be plagiarized after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct preliminary investigation, may be with the help of a suitable committee constituted for the purpose. If the manuscript is found to be plagiarized beyond the acceptable limits, the journal will contact the author’s Institute / College / University and Funding Agency, if any. A determination of misconduct will lead FHI to run a statement bidirectionally linked online to and from the original paper, to note the plagiarism and provide a reference to the plagiarized material. The paper containing the plagiarism will also be marked on each page of the PDF. Upon determination of the extent of plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted.

Policy and Action for Plagiarism

FHI shall take serious action against published manuscripts found to contain plagiarism and shall completely remove them from FHI website and other third party websites where the paper is listed and indexed. The moment, any article published in FHI database is reported to be plagiarized, FHI will constitute a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) to investigate the same. Upon having established that the manuscript is plagiarized from some previously published work, FHI shall support the original author and manuscript irrespective of the publisher and may take any or all of the following immediate actions or follow the additional course of actions as recommended by the committee:

1- FHI editorial office shall immediately contact the Director / Dean / Head of the concerned College, Institution or Organization or the Vice Chancellor of the University to which the author(s) is (are) affiliated to take strict action against the concerned author.

2- FHI shall remove the PDF copy of the published manuscript from the website and disable all links to full text article. The term Plagiarized Manuscript shall be appended to the published manuscript title.

3- FHI shall disable the author account with the journal and reject all future submissions from the author for a period of at least 3 to 5 years.

4- FHI may also display the list of such authors along with their full contact details on FHI website.

5- Any other course of action, as recommended by the Committee or as deemed fit for the instant case or as decided by the Editorial Board, from time to time.

Article Processing Charges (APC)

For providing researchers with Open Access and freely available contents, publishing an article in Frontiers in Health Informatics is free of charge.

License Agreement for Publishing CC-BY

Dear Contributor(s):

Much obliged to you for presenting your Contribution for distribution. So as to assist the altering and distributing process and empower Publisher to scatter your Contribution to the furthest reaches, we need this Agreement executed. In the event that the Contribution isn't acknowledged for distribution, or if the Contribution is along these lines dismissed, this Agreement will be invalid and void. Distribution can't continue without a consented to duplicate of this Arrangement. Plese download and read the lisence agreement carefully and sign and send it to journal email.

Informed Consent Policy

Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper. Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or 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 an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication. Patient consent should be written and archived with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. We decide that patient confidentiality is better guarded by having the author archive the consent and instead providing the journal with a written statement that attests that they have received and archived written patient consent. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.

Nonessential identifying details should 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. If identifying characteristics are de-identified, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such changes do not distort scientific meaning.

Patient identifiers will not be published in FHI, unless written informed consent is given and the content is essential for the scientific purpose and merit of the manuscript. Photographs of subjects showing any recognizable features must be accompanied by t heir signed release authorizing publication, as must case reports that provide enough unique identification of a person (other than name) to make recognition possible. Failure to obtain informed consent of patient prior to submission would result in manuscript rejection.

Conflict of Interest

The FHI requires all authors and reviewers to declare any conflicts of interest that may be inherent in their submissions. Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process as author, reviewer, or editor has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected. Financial relationships with industry, for example, through employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered to be the most important conflicts of interest.

However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Bias can often be identified and eliminated by careful attention to the scientific methods and conclusions of the work. Financial relationships and their effects are less easily detected than other conflicts of interest. Participants in peer review and publication should disclose their conflicting interests, and the information should be made available so that others can judge their effects for themselves.

Authors: When they submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.

Reviewers: External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ conflicts of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified. Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.

Correction Policy

Online corrections.

The version of an article which is published online is considered the final and complete version. Even though it is possible to correct this version, our policy (in common with other publishers) is not to do so, except in very limited circumstances.

We are only able to correct typographical errors in the following: author names, affiliations, articles titles, and abstracts and keywords. In such cases, an erratum or corrigendum would be necessary as well (see below), so that there is a record to explain the difference between the online and print versions.

We can publish a correction to your article if there is a serious error, for example with regard to scientific accuracy, or if your reputation or that of the journal would be affected. We do not publish corrections that do not affect the contribution in a material way or significantly impair the reader's understanding of the contribution (such as a spelling mistake or a grammatical error).

Errata

An erratum will be used if an important error has been introduced during the production of the journal article (one that affects the publication record, the scientific integrity of the paper, the reputation of the authors or of the journal), including errors of omission such as failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy.

We do not publish errata for typing errors except where an apparently simple error is significant (for example, an incorrect unit). A significant error in a figure or table is corrected by publication of a new corrected figure or table as an erratum. The figure or table is republished only if the editor considers it necessary.

Corrigenda
A corrigendum is a notification of an important error made by the authors of the article. All authors must sign corrigenda submitted for publication.

In cases where co-authors disagree, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers and impose the appropriate amendment, noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.

Addenda
An addendum is a notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to a paper, for example in response to a reader's request for clarification. Addenda do not contradict the original publication, but if the author inadvertently omitted significant information available at the time, this material can be published as an addendum after peer review.

Addenda are published only rarely and only when the editors decide that the addendum is crucial to the reader's understanding of a significant part of the published contribution.

Human and Animal Rights

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.

The submitted study has to be supported by the ethics/bioethics committee approval. Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Advertising Policy

We do not allow any type of advertisement in our journal website.