Health & New Media Research (HNMR) abides by the international standards of ethical scholarship as reflected in international academic associations (e.g. the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Directory of Open Access Journals) with which it is affiliated. These standards impose duties of care upon authors, reviewers, and editors/publishers as detailed below. In order to support objectivity, HNMR engages in a double-blind peer-review process in which the identity of the author(s) is guarded from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential from the author(s). The Manuscript Editor removes all identifying material from submitted manuscripts before sending them to the reviewers, and likewise, removes any identifying material from the reviews before they are passed on to the author(s).

Ethics for Authors
All those who have made a significant contribution to the work must be listed as co-authors, whereas those who have participated in other ways to the project must have their contributions acknowledged.

Authorship of the work should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to its conception, design, execution, or interpretation.

All authors must complete and submit the Statement of Ethical Contributions to HNMR.

All authors must declare any potential conflict of interest related to the submission of an article for publication consideration in HNMR whether financial, professional, or personal. All sources of financial support for the research leading to the production of the article for consideration must also be disclosed.

All authors confirm that the work is entirely original in nature, that it has not been published previously in whole or in substantial part, is not currently under consideration at any other journal, and that where the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately cited.

Authors will refrain from creating non-existing data or research results; plagiarism, i.e. using the ideas, research contents, and/or results of another without proper acknowledgment or appropriate citation/permission; any other kind of conduct unacceptable in the academic profession in general.

The author(s) acknowledge that future publication of this work, in whole or in part, is only possible with the written consent of the Editor of HNMR.

The author(s) further acknowledge responsibility for any errors and pledge to notify promptly the Editor and Managing Editor of HNMR should any significant error be identified.

The author(s) will cooperate with the Editor of HNMR to publish corrections or to retract the paper where this is deemed necessary.

Ethics for Reviewers
All reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest related to the evaluation of an article submitted for publication consideration in HNMR whether financial, professional, or personal.

Reviewers have a duty to maintain the confidentiality of the review process, and also of the material submitted by the author for review.

Reviewers have a duty to review the manuscript in an objective, balanced, comprehensive, constructive, and timely manner.

Reviewers have a responsibility to alert the Editor and Manuscript Editor of HNMR of any potential breach of ethics by authors and also to bring to the attention of the Editor and Manuscript Editor relevant published work which is not yet cited.

Where possible, reviewers should assist authors to improve their manuscripts through constructive suggestions for revision and resubmission either to HNMR or to another journal.

Ethics for Editors/Publishers
The Editors and Publishers of HNMR pledge to carry out their duties in a professional manner free from any discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

The Editors of HNMR shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.

In no case shall HNMR or its editors encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Research Misconduct
In the event that the editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, the following procedures can be enacted. In the case of unethical behavior by an author(s) reported at the pre-publication stage, the Editors will gather supporting evidence, and the author(s) will be given a chance to respond to the allegations as part of the reviewing process.

If the allegations are substantiated, and the author(s) is unable to respond to them in a satisfactory manner, then the article will not be accepted for publication.

In case of unethical behavior reported to the Editors or Publishers post-publication, a Research Ethics Committee (the Committee hereafter) shall be convened consisting of five professionals, including at least three Editorial Board Members of HNMR, with the authority for investigating the case in question. The Editor of HNMR appoints the Committee Members and heads the Committee.

A complainant may use any instrument of communication to complain about unjust research conduct. The Committee shall protect the complainant’s interests and, where necessary, identity. Until the investigation is complete, the identity of the author(s) and the nature of the complaint will also be kept confidential. The author(s) will be given written notice of the complaint and the opportunity to respond to any and all allegations. The Committee should arrive at a conclusion within two months from the beginning of the investigation.

If the allegations are substantiated and upheld by the Committee, HNMR will publish corrections, clarifications, apologies, and, where necessary, retractions in the next print version of the journal. Changes will also be made to the online version of the journal with immediate effect.

In the most serious cases, the Committee may recommend formal notification of the breach of ethics to the author(s)' head of department and/or an embargo on future publication with HNMR.

All indexing and abstracting bodies with which HNMR is listed will also be informed of these necessary modifications.

Conflict-of-interest statement
The corresponding author is required to summarize all authors’ conflict of interest disclosures. Disclosure form shall be same with ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest (www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest). A conflict of interest may exist when an author (or the author’s institution or employer) has financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence (or bias) the author’s decisions, work, or manuscript. All authors should disclose their conflicts of interest, i.e., (1) financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony), (2) personal relationships, (3) academic competition, and (4) intellectual passion. These conflicts of interest must be included as a footnote on the title page or in the Acknowledgements section.
sources of funding should be declared on the title page or in the Acknowledgements section at the end of the text. If an author’s disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is determined to be inaccurate or incomplete after publication, a correction will be published to rectify the original published disclosure statement, and additional action may be taken as necessary.

Please note that all manuscripts, regardless of whether they are submitted by editors, employees, or members of the editorial board, undergo the identical review process as other authors. Submitters of the manuscripts are not involved in the decision-making process. In addition, in case one or more of editors are involved as authors, the authors should declare conflict of interests.

Ex) [The author’s name] has been an editor of the Health & New Media Research since 2022; however, he/she was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Statement of informed consent
Copies of written informed consents and Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for clinical research are recommended kept. The editor or reviewers may request copies of these documents to make potential ethical issues clear.

Protection of privacy, confidentiality, and written informed consent
Identifying details should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless it is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or his/her parents or guardian) provides written informed consent for publication. Additionally, informed consent should be obtained in the event that anonymity of the patient is not assured. For example, masking the eye region of patients in photographs is not adequate to ensure anonymity. If identifying characteristics are changed to protect anonymity, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning. When informed consent has been obtained, this should be indicated in the published article.

Protection of human and animal rights
In the reporting of experiments that involve human subjects, it should be stated that the study was performed according to the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 (revised 2013) (Available from https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ ) and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the institution where the experiment was performed. Clinical studies that do not meet the Helsinki Declaration will not be considered for publication. Identifying details should not be published (such as name, initial of name, ID numbers, or date of birth).

In the case of an animal study, a statement should be provided indicating that the experimental processes, such as the breeding and the use of laboratory animals, were approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) of the institution where the experiment was performed or that they did not violate the rules of the REC of the institution or the NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/5140/guide-for-thecare-and-use-oflaboratory-animals). The authors should preserve raw experimental study data for at least 1 year after the publication of the paper and should present this data if required by the Editorial Board.