Research integrity and publication ethics
Userhub Journal expects research and publication records to be accurate, transparent, responsibly produced, and attributable to the people who made the relevant scholarly contributions.
These expectations apply to authors, editors, assessors, reviewers, and others involved in evaluation or publication. Decisions are guided by the reliability of the scholarly record, the protection of research participants where applicable, appropriate management of conflicts, and fair treatment of authors and contributors.
Authorship and contributorship
- Authorship requires a substantive contribution to the research and manuscript.
- Author order should reflect the nature and extent of substantive contribution rather than institutional position or publication strategy.
- All authors must approve the submitted and final versions and consent to publication.
- Contributions must be attributed accurately. CRediT roles should be recorded for new articles where practical.
- People who contribute without meeting authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.
Originality, evidence, and the scholarly record
Manuscripts undergo editorial originality checks, reference verification, and assessment for inappropriate duplication, fabrication, falsification, unattributed reuse, invented evidence, and other practices that could undermine the reliability of the record. Similarity-detection tools may be used where appropriate.
- Authors must not submit a manuscript that is simultaneously under consideration by another publication.
- Relevant prior publication, dissemination, adaptation, or reuse must be disclosed.
- References, quotations, evidence, and reported results must be traceable and support the claims made.
- Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, inappropriate duplication, invented quotations, manipulated evidence, or materially unverifiable claims may lead to revision, rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
Concerns about research or publication conduct
The Journal may seek clarification, supporting records, source information, or other relevant evidence when a credible concern is raised about a manuscript or publication.
Concerns are considered in relation to the available evidence. Where appropriate, the Journal may consult a qualified non-conflicted adviser or relevant institution before deciding whether editorial action is necessary.
Conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or its publication. Editors, assessors, and reviewers must also disclose relevant conflicts.
Editorial independence and author conflicts
An author does not make the final editorial decision on their own manuscript. Where the Managing Editor or another person responsible for Journal operations is an author or has a material conflict, assessment and publication approval are assigned to a qualified non-author assessor or adviser without the relevant conflict.
Editorial decisions should be based on the manuscript, evidence, research integrity, and relevant scholarly standards rather than on an author's institutional role, seniority, personal relationship, or publication history.
Human-participant research
Research involving human participants must follow appropriate ethical safeguards, including informed consent, privacy and confidentiality protections, responsible data handling, and ethics review where required.
Userhub-led research may be reviewed through the Userhub Research Ethics Committee (UREC), while collaborative research may follow the applicable ethics-review process of the participating institution.
Confidentiality in assessment
Unpublished manuscripts, research materials supplied for assessment, and confidential correspondence should be handled only for legitimate editorial or assessment purposes. Assessors and reviewers should not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or competitive advantage.
Where confidential research materials are provided to support assessment, access should be limited to what is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
Generative AI
Generative AI tools may be used to support research and manuscript development where appropriate. Material use must be disclosed, and authors remain responsible for the accuracy, evidence, interpretation, references, originality, and confidentiality of the work. AI systems cannot be listed as authors.
- Fabricated references, evidence, or quotations are unacceptable.
- Confidential or identifiable participant information must be handled responsibly.
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions
Material errors or integrity concerns identified after publication may be addressed through a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and significance of the issue.
Post-publication action should preserve a clear record of what changed, why the action was taken, and how the original publication record is affected.
Appeals and complaints
Authors may raise an appeal or complaint with the Journal at [email protected]. Appeals should identify the decision or process being challenged and provide a clear basis for reconsideration.
The Journal will consider the concern through an appropriate editorial or governance route and may seek a non-conflicted assessment where the matter involves an editorial conflict.
Post-publication dialogue
Readers, authors, and other interested parties may contact the Journal to raise substantiated concerns, suggest corrections, or provide information relevant to a published article. The Journal may request supporting evidence before taking action.