The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning evaluates credible allegations of research or publication misconduct before and after publication. Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, funders, editors, staff members, or whistleblowers. The journal assesses allegations impartially, protects confidential information, gives affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond, and acts according to the available evidence.

1.1. Scope of Misconduct

Misconduct and serious publication-ethics concerns may include, but are not limited to:

• Fabrication or falsification: inventing, altering, suppressing, or misrepresenting data, evidence, methods, results, images, or records.
• Plagiarism or unattributed reuse: using another person's words, ideas, data, figures, code, or intellectual contribution without appropriate attribution.
• Redundant, duplicate, or multiple submission: undisclosed substantial overlap, simultaneous or multiple submission of the same or substantially similar work, or republication without a legitimate basis and transparent citation.
• Authorship misconduct or invalid authorship: gift, guest, ghost, purchased, coerced, omitted, falsely attributed, or otherwise inappropriate authorship or contributorship.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: failure to report relevant financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, or intellectual-property interests.
• Peer-review or editorial manipulation: fabricated reviewer identities, compromised review, unauthorised delegation, coercion, or interference with editorial independence.
• Ethics, consent, or data violations: missing or misleading ethics approval, consent, registration, permissions, data provenance, or confidentiality safeguards.
• Misuse of generative AI: undisclosed or prohibited use that compromises authorship accountability, originality, confidentiality, evidence, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

1.2. Reporting and Protection of Complainants

Concerns should be submitted through the official journal contact channel with the article or manuscript title, relevant identifiers, a clear description of the concern, and supporting evidence where available. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The identity of a complainant acting in good faith will be protected to the extent reasonably possible and permitted by law. Retaliation, intimidation, or harassment in response to a good-faith report is not accepted.

1.3. Investigation Procedure

1. Receipt and logging: the allegation and supporting material are recorded securely.

2. Preliminary assessment: a non-conflicted editor determines whether the concern falls within the journal's remit and whether sufficient information exists to proceed.

3. Conflict check: any editor, staff member, board member, or publisher representative with a relevant conflict is excluded and the matter is reassigned.

4. Evidence preservation: relevant submission files, review records, correspondence, published versions, metadata, data, figures, and other available records are secured.

5. Notification and response: the respondent is informed confidentially of the substantive concern and is normally given a reasonable opportunity to provide an explanation and supporting evidence.

6. Independent assessment: the journal may consult independent subject, methodological, statistical, image, legal, or publication-ethics expertise when necessary.

7. Institutional or funder referral: matters requiring authority beyond the journal, particularly the investigation of research conduct, may be referred to the relevant institution, employer, ethics body, funder, or competent authority.

8. Interim protection: editorial processing may be paused; after publication, an expression of concern may be considered when reliable evidence cannot yet be obtained promptly and readers require notice.

9. Editorial determination: the authorised, non-conflicted editor evaluates the evidence and records the reasons for the outcome.

10. Corrective action: the journal may take no action, request clarification or correction, reject a manuscript, withdraw an accepted manuscript, publish a correction or expression of concern, retract an article, restrict future submissions for a proportionate period, or notify relevant parties.

11. Communication: the complainant and affected parties are informed of the outcome to the extent compatible with confidentiality, privacy, legal obligations, and procedural fairness.

12. Record retention: significant investigation records are retained securely for at least five years after closure, subject to applicable legal, privacy, and institutional requirements.

1.4. Before and After Publication

Before publication, the journal may pause review, production, or release while a concern is assessed. After publication, the primary objective is to protect the scholarly record. Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, withdrawals, removals, and related notices are handled under the journal's Withdrawal, Retraction & Correction Policy. Significant changes are not made silently.

1.5. Confidentiality and Transparency

Investigations are conducted confidentially and information is shared only with persons or organisations that need it for a legitimate assessment, legal obligation, or protection of the scholarly record. The journal does not promise to publish confidential evidence or the complete investigation file. When public action is required, the published notice will identify the affected record, explain the reason sufficiently, state who initiated the action where appropriate, and remain permanently linked to the article.

Authorship gives scholarly credit and carries responsibility and accountability. J-HyTEL applies contribution-based authorship criteria and does not impose a fixed maximum number of authors. The number of authors must reflect the work actually performed; every listed author must qualify, and contributors who do not qualify for authorship must be acknowledged appropriately with their permission.

2.1. Criteria for Authorship

J-HyTEL follows the four authorship criteria described in the current ICMJE Recommendations. Every author must satisfy all four criteria:

1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

2. Drafting the manuscript or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content.

3. Final approval of the version submitted and the version accepted for publication.

4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions concerning accuracy or integrity are investigated and resolved appropriately.

All persons who meet the criteria should be identified as authors. The author group is responsible for determining authorship and author order collectively. J-HyTEL may request clarification or documentary confirmation, but the journal does not determine authorship on the basis of seniority, institutional position, funding, supervision, or author count.

2.2. Contributor Statement and CRediT

Every multi-author manuscript must include an author-contribution statement using the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy. A sole-author manuscript must state that the author is solely responsible for all applicable contributor roles. CRediT describes contributions but does not by itself establish authorship; every listed author must still satisfy the journal's authorship criteria.

For large collaborations, a group name may be used where appropriate, provided that the byline and contributor statement clearly distinguish authors who take credit and accountability from non-author collaborators. The corresponding author must ensure that all listed authors have approved the submission, the author order, the contribution statement, and the final accepted version.

2.3. Non-Author Contributors

Funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative support, language editing, technical editing, proofreading, data collection without sufficient intellectual participation, or other limited assistance does not alone qualify a person for authorship. Such contributions should be acknowledged accurately, with the contributor's permission. Generative AI systems and AI-assisted technologies cannot be authors and are governed by the journal's Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

2.4. Authorship Disputes

Authors should resolve authorship and author-order questions before submission. When a dispute cannot be resolved, the journal may pause processing and request that the relevant institution or institutions investigate, because institutions are ordinarily better placed than editors to determine factual contributions. The journal will act on a documented institutional outcome or other reliable evidence and may seek guidance from COPE.

2.5. Changes in Authorship

A request to add, remove, or rearrange an author after submission must include a clear explanation and written agreement from all listed authors and from any person being added or removed. The journal may pause processing while the request is assessed. Authorship changes after acceptance are exceptional. After publication, a justified authorship change normally requires a formal correction linked to the article.

2.6. Gift, Guest, Ghost, Purchased, and Coerced Authorship

J-HyTEL does not permit authorship without a qualifying contribution, omission of a qualifying contributor, sale or purchase of authorship positions, coercive authorship, or manipulation of author order. Confirmed cases are addressed under the journal's misconduct and post-publication procedures.

J-HyTEL considers complaints about journal policies, editorial conduct, peer-review procedure, publication-ethics handling, published content, staff, editors, or the publisher. An appeal asks the journal to reconsider a specific editorial or complaint outcome because relevant evidence, a material procedural error, a conflict of interest, or a significant misunderstanding may have affected the decision. Disagreement with a reviewer's scholarly opinion alone is not sufficient unless supported by a clear and substantive rationale.

3.1. How to Submit

Submit a complaint or appeal through the official journal contact channel. Use the subject line Complaint or Appeal and provide:

• the complainant's name and reliable contact information;
• the manuscript or article title, submission ID, DOI, or other relevant identifier;
• a concise description of the issue or decision being challenged;
• the specific policy, evidence, procedural concern, or conflict relevant to the request; and
• supporting documents or correspondence where available.

3.2. Acknowledgment and Initial Assessment

The journal normally acknowledges a complete complaint or appeal within five working days. An initial assessment is normally completed within ten working days to determine scope, urgency, conflicts of interest, the information required, and the person responsible for handling the matter. These are service targets rather than absolute guarantees.

3.3. Independent and Conflict-Free Handling

A person who is the subject of a complaint, participated materially in the disputed decision, or has another relevant conflict must not investigate or decide the matter. Complaints concerning an editor are assigned to another independent senior editor. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief or publisher are assigned to an independent senior editor, qualified Editorial Board member, or external adviser who was not involved in the original matter.

3.4. Investigation and Outcome

The handler may review the manuscript, reports, correspondence, policies, decision record, and relevant evidence; seek responses from affected parties; obtain independent advice; or refer research-conduct questions to an institution or competent authority. The journal aims to issue a reasoned written outcome within thirty working days after receiving the information necessary to assess the matter. Complex cases may require more time; when this occurs, the complainant will receive a status update where appropriate.

3.5. Appeals

An appeal should normally be submitted within thirty calendar days of the decision being challenged. It must identify new evidence, a material procedural error, a relevant undisclosed conflict, or a significant error in the application of journal policy. Repeated submission of the same arguments without new grounds may be declined.

The appeal is reviewed by an independent, conflict-free person or committee that was not responsible for the original decision. The appeal outcome is communicated in writing with a concise explanation. The appeal decision is final within the journal's internal process.

3.6. External Referral, Confidentiality, and Records

Where appropriate, a matter may be referred to an institution, funder, ethics body, legal authority, or other competent organisation. Such referral does not transfer editorial authority over the journal's published record. Complaints and appeals are handled confidentially, personal information is shared only when necessary, and significant records are retained securely for at least five years after closure, subject to applicable legal and privacy requirements.

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organisation has financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships that could potentially influence, or appear to influence, their objectivity, integrity, or decision-making in the research, review, editorial, or publishing processes.

4.1. Identification and Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, editors, and others involved in the publication process must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the work they submit, review, edit, or publish. This includes but is not limited to:

• Financial Interests: Funding, stock ownership, employment, consultancy, or other financial relationships related to the research
• Personal Relationships: Close personal or familial ties with individuals involved in the research or publication process
• Academic Relationships: Collaborations or affiliations that may influence objectivity
• Competing Affiliations: Relationships with competing organisations that may create conflicting interests
• Intellectual Property: Patents, copyrights, or intellectual property rights that could impact the research or publication

4.2. Management of Conflicts of Interest

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning manages declared, potential, and perceived conflicts of interest in a manner intended to protect the independence, fairness, and credibility of its editorial and peer-review processes.

• Authors: Authors must disclose all relevant financial, personal, professional, academic, institutional, or intellectual-property interests at the time of submission. Authors must promptly notify the editorial office if a relevant conflict becomes known after submission or publication.

• Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality. A reviewer who cannot provide an independent assessment must decline the invitation or withdraw from the review and notify the handling editor immediately.

• Editors and Editorial Staff: Editors and editorial staff must not handle, select reviewers for, participate in deliberations on, or make decisions about manuscripts for which they have an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor with no relevant conflict.

• Publisher: The publisher must not influence editorial decisions for commercial, financial, institutional, personal, or other non-scholarly reasons. Editorial decisions remain under the authority of the journal’s independent editorial leadership.

4.3. Editorial Submissions and Independent Handling

Editors and members of the Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to the journal, but they receive no preferential treatment. Their manuscripts are subject to the same editorial screening, ethical requirements, peer-review standards, and decision criteria as all other submissions.

• A manuscript authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief must be assigned to an independent senior editor or qualified Editorial Board member who has no relevant personal, professional, academic, or institutional conflict with the authors.

• A manuscript authored or co-authored by an editor or Editorial Board member must be handled by another independent editor. The submitting editor or board member must not select reviewers, access confidential reviewer identities, participate in editorial deliberations, or influence the final editorial decision.

• A manuscript must not be handled by an editor who is affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors, or who has a recent collaboration, supervisory relationship, close personal relationship, direct professional dependency, or other connection that could reasonably call impartiality into question.

• Editorial status, institutional affiliation, professional seniority, or personal relationships must not affect reviewer selection, the evaluation process, or the editorial outcome.

4.4. Editor Recusal and Reassignment

An editor who identifies an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest must disclose the conflict and recuse themselves before participating in the assessment of the manuscript. The submission will then be reassigned to an independent editor.

1. The conflicted editor must notify the Editor-in-Chief or the authorised senior editor responsible for reassignment.

2. The conflicted editor must take no further part in reviewer selection, editorial correspondence, deliberation, recommendation, or decision-making concerning the manuscript.

3. Where the conflict involves the Editor-in-Chief, responsibility for the manuscript must be transferred to an independent senior editor or qualified Editorial Board member who has not been involved in the submission.

4. The reassigned editor must independently manage the review process and make or recommend the editorial decision in accordance with the journal’s normal procedures.

4.5. Disclosure and Confidentiality

Relevant author conflict-of-interest declarations will be published with the article. Reviewer and editor disclosures will be assessed confidentially by the journal and will not ordinarily be made public unless disclosure is necessary to explain a significant editorial action, correction, investigation, or post-publication decision.

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest may result in reviewer or editor reassignment, suspension of the editorial process, rejection of the manuscript, correction of the published record, or other action considered appropriate under the journal’s publication ethics procedures.

Every manuscript must include a Data Availability Statement explaining where the data, code, instruments, protocols, analytical materials, or other resources supporting the findings can be accessed. When no new data were created or analysed, or when the article type does not involve underlying research data, the statement should say so.

5.1. Open and Responsible Sharing

Authors are encouraged to deposit shareable data, code, and materials in a reputable repository that provides a persistent identifier and appropriate preservation. Shared records should contain sufficient documentation, provenance, file descriptions, licences, and access information to support responsible reuse and verification. Datasets and software should be cited as research outputs where appropriate.

5.2. Restricted, Sensitive, or Third-Party Data

Public sharing is not required when it would breach participant consent, privacy, confidentiality, legal obligations, intellectual-property rights, security requirements, cultural or community protections, contractual restrictions, or legitimate third-party controls. The Data Availability Statement must explain the restriction and, when possible, describe a lawful and ethical controlled-access procedure. Authors must not promise access that they are not authorised or able to provide.

5.3. Editorial Verification and Retention

The journal may request relevant data, code, instruments, permissions, protocol documents, or analysis files when necessary for editorial assessment or an integrity inquiry. Authors should preserve supporting records for the period required by applicable institutional, funder, legal, ethical, or disciplinary standards and for long enough to address reasonable questions about the published work.

5.4. Reporting Standards and Reproducibility

Authors must describe the design, participants or data sources, sampling, instruments, procedures, software and versions, analytical decisions, exclusions, deviations, and limitations in sufficient detail for critical assessment and reasonable replication or verification. Design-specific reporting guidelines and checklists should be followed where applicable.

5.5. Clinical and Interventional Trial Registration

Clinical or health-related interventional trials must be registered prospectively in an appropriate publicly accessible trial registry before enrolment of the first participant, where required by applicable ethical, legal, disciplinary, or journal standards. The registry name, registration number, and registration date must be reported in the manuscript. For registration purposes, the WHO ICTRP defines a clinical trial as a study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate effects on health outcomes.

Observational, qualitative, survey, educational, design-based, correlational, and other non-trial studies involving human participants are not automatically subject to clinical-trial registration. They must nevertheless comply with the ethics review, consent, protocol, registration, and reporting requirements that apply to their design, discipline, jurisdiction, institution, or funder. Prospective registration of protocols or analysis plans is encouraged when appropriate.

6.1. Ethics Review and Approval

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, human biological material, or animals must comply with applicable law, institutional requirements, disciplinary standards, and recognised ethical principles. The manuscript must identify the approving ethics committee or review body and report the approval or protocol number where available. When formal review was not required or an exemption was granted, authors must provide the legal, institutional, or methodological basis and identify the authority that made the determination where applicable. Authors must not describe a study as exempt solely on their own assertion when independent determination is required.

6.2. Informed Consent and Consent for Publication

Informed consent, assent, parental or guardian permission, and consent for publication must be obtained and reported when required. Consent for participation does not automatically include permission to publish identifiable information. Identifiable names, quotations, images, audio, video, case details, locations, or combinations of indirect identifiers require specific consent for publication unless a lawful and ethically justified exception applies. The journal may request evidence of consent, but sensitive consent documents should not be uploaded publicly.

6.3. Children and Participants in Situations of Vulnerability

Studies involving children, persons with impaired decision-making capacity, marginalised communities, dependent relationships, or other situations of particular vulnerability must justify inclusion, minimise risks and burdens, use accessible consent or assent procedures, protect privacy, and explain additional safeguards. Researchers should avoid exploitative recruitment and should consider whether benefits, risks, and burdens are distributed fairly.

6.4. Medical Research Involving Human Participants

Medical research involving human participants, including research using identifiable human material or data, should follow the current WMA Declaration of Helsinki (2024) where applicable, together with relevant national law and institutional requirements. The Declaration of Helsinki is a framework for medical research and is not imposed indiscriminately on every educational, social-science, or non-medical study; those studies must follow the ethical standards appropriate to their own design and context.

6.5. Animal Research

Research involving animals must have approval from an appropriate animal ethics committee or authorised review body where required and must follow applicable welfare legislation and recognised discipline-specific standards. Authors must report the approving body, approval number where available, species, relevant welfare safeguards, and measures taken to minimise pain, distress, and unnecessary use.

6.6. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Community Responsibilities

Researchers must minimise collection and disclosure of personal data, use appropriate de-identification and security measures, respect community or cultural governance where relevant, and disclose any limits to confidentiality. Publicly accessible online information is not automatically exempt from ethical, privacy, consent, or platform-related considerations.

This section provides an ethics-hub summary. The dedicated policies linked below contain the full requirements and procedures. Related summaries should be read consistently with those dedicated policy pages.

7.1. Copyright and Publishing Licences

Authors retain copyright. Articles published from Volume 3, Number 1 (2025) onward use CC BY 4.0; articles published in 2023–2024 retain the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence indicated on the article. Rights, first-publication terms, author reuse, third-party material, and historical licence coverage are governed by the Copyright & License Policy.

7.2. Publication Costs and Revenue Transparency

Submission and peer review are free. An APC applies only after formal acceptance, and waiver or discount decisions are handled independently from scientific assessment. Amounts, eligibility, procedure, and payment terms are governed by the APC & Waiver Policy. The journal's sources of financial and organisational support are described in its Revenue Sources & Business Model.

7.3. Preprints and Prior Dissemination

Responsible preprint posting and specified forms of prior dissemination are permitted when fully disclosed and when the submission does not constitute simultaneous submission or duplicate publication. Requirements for preprints, theses, conference materials, repositories, working papers, version linking, and overlap are governed by the Preprint & Prior Dissemination Policy.

7.4. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

Submissions are screened for textual overlap. A similarity percentage is an editorial indicator and does not by itself establish plagiarism. Definitions, screening benchmarks, human assessment, and proportionate responses are governed by the Plagiarism & Similarity Screening Policy.

7.5. Redundant and Overlapping Publication

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, datasets, reports, public versions, translations, and conference outputs and must explain the distinct contribution of the submission. Undisclosed substantial overlap, simultaneous submission, and duplicate publication are not accepted. Concerns are handled under the Preprint & Prior Dissemination Policy, the misconduct procedure, and the Withdrawal, Retraction & Correction Policy.

The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning maintains policies, procedures, and publishing systems intended to support responsible journal management, editorial independence, transparent decision-making, and the long-term accessibility of its published content. These arrangements are reviewed periodically and may be updated in response to operational needs, developments in scholarly publishing, and relevant ethical guidance.

• Business Model: The Journal of Hypermedia & Technology-Enhanced Learning operates as an open-access journal. Published articles are made freely available to readers without subscription charges. Submission and peer review do not require payment. An Article Processing Charge (APC) applies only after a manuscript has been accepted for publication. Information concerning APC amounts, payment procedures, waivers, and discounts is provided in the journal’s APC & Waiver Policy.

• Editorial Independence: Editorial decisions are made by the journal’s authorised editors based on the manuscript’s scholarly quality, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological soundness, and compliance with applicable ethical requirements. The publisher, financial administrators, service providers, donors, institutional partners, and other external parties must not influence decisions for commercial, financial, institutional, personal, or other non-scholarly reasons.

• Editorial Policies and Procedures: The journal maintains written policies and guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors. These address matters including manuscript submission, peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship, research integrity, complaints and appeals, corrections, retractions, and other aspects of editorial decision-making. The journal seeks to apply these policies consistently and to communicate material policy changes through its website.

• Publishing Systems and Tools: The journal uses an online journal management system to support manuscript submission, editorial handling, peer review, publication, and record maintenance. Editorially approved tools may also be used to assist with similarity screening, language checking, reference verification, metadata preparation, and production. Results produced by automated tools are treated as supporting information and do not replace editorial assessment or human judgement.

• Data Security and Confidentiality: The journal seeks to protect confidential manuscript, reviewer, author, and editorial information through access controls and appropriate technical and administrative measures. Access to unpublished materials and confidential editorial records is limited to individuals whose assigned roles require such access.

• Editorial and Publishing Staff Development: Editors and publishing personnel are encouraged to maintain and develop their knowledge of peer-review practice, research integrity, publication ethics, editorial technologies, and relevant developments in scholarly communication. Guidance, internal discussion, external resources, and training activities may be used when appropriate and available.

• Quality Assurance: The journal applies editorial and production checks intended to identify issues involving scope, presentation, metadata, references, ethical disclosures, authorship information, licensing, and publication readiness. These checks support editorial consistency but do not constitute a guarantee that every error will be identified before publication. Concerns identified after publication are addressed through the journal’s applicable correction, retraction, and post-publication policies.

• Sustainability and Continuity: The journal seeks to maintain a sustainable publishing model that supports editorial operations, online access, metadata management, DOI registration, preservation, and the continued availability of published articles. Financial arrangements, including APC administration, are kept separate from editorial assessment and acceptance decisions.

• Alignment with Publishing Standards: The journal’s policies are informed by recognised principles and guidance for responsible scholarly publishing, including the COPE Core Practices. The journal seeks to align its procedures with relevant ethical, legal, technical, and editorial standards and reviews its policies as these standards and practices develop. Reference to external guidance does not imply accreditation, certification, or organisational membership unless expressly stated.

• Author Information and Support: The journal provides authors with published instructions concerning submission requirements, manuscript preparation, peer review, revision, publication charges, licensing, and post-publication procedures. Questions that are not addressed in the published guidance may be submitted to the journal through its official contact channel.

Every research or other substantive scholarly manuscript accepted for publication must have received double-blind external peer review and at least two completed independent external review reports from experts with relevant subject or methodological competence. Reviewers are appointed independently by the handling editor, their recommendations are advisory, and the authorised, non-conflicted editor remains responsible for the final editorial decision.

Reviewers and editors must protect confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, avoid unauthorised delegation, and base their assessment on scholarly merit. A conflicted editor must recuse and the submission must be reassigned. Manuscripts authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or Editorial Board members receive no preferential treatment and are handled independently.

Published review timeframes are operational targets rather than guarantees and may vary because of reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision requirements, ethical enquiries, or additional specialist assessment. The full review model, reviewer selection, identity verification, supplementary-material handling, confidentiality, timeline, revision, re-review, decision, conflict, and record-retention requirements are stated in the Peer Review Policy. The sequential workflow is described in the Peer Review Process, and reviewer instructions are provided in the Reviewer Guidelines.

J-HyTEL welcomes evidence-based post-publication concerns and scholarly correspondence submitted through the journal's official contact or submission channels. Direct public comments are not enabled on the website. External moderated discussion may be considered by the editors when it raises a specific, substantiated concern about a published record.

Errors and integrity concerns are addressed proportionately through a correction, expression of concern, retraction, withdrawal, removal in exceptional circumstances, replacement, or another documented notice. The original DOI and record remain persistent where appropriate, notices are linked bidirectionally, and substantive changes are not made silently.

The complete criteria, procedures, notice requirements, responsibility for notices, metadata updates, fees, version handling, and preservation of the record are governed by the journal's Withdrawal, Retraction & Correction Policy.

J-HyTEL requires responsible, transparent, and human-supervised use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies. AI systems must not be listed as authors. Human authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, references, data, interpretation, permissions, confidentiality, and integrity of every submitted and published component.

Every manuscript must include a statement declaring whether covered technologies were used. Reviewers and editors must protect confidential submission materials and must not delegate scholarly evaluation or editorial decision-making to generative AI.

The full requirements for authorship, permitted and prohibited uses, mandatory declarations, AI as a research method, references, images and media, confidentiality, peer review, editorial use, verification, and non-compliance are set out in the journal's Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

Policy notice: This section is a summary for the Publication Ethics hub and should be read consistently with the dedicated Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

J-HyTEL publishes three scheduled regular issues annually, in February, June, and October. A regular issue is released publicly as a complete issue only after its planned scholarly content has completed peer review, final editorial acceptance, copyediting, author proofing, production, licensing, metadata verification, DOI preparation, and final publication checks.

If exceptional editorial or production circumstances delay a scheduled issue, the issue remains unpublished until it is ready. The journal records the actual date on which the issue becomes public and does not backdate the issue or its articles merely to match the scheduled publication month.

Eligible final articles may, at the editors' discretion, be published Online First before assignment to a regular issue. Online First publication is optional and is not automatic. An Online First article is a final, published, citable scholarly record that has completed all applicable editorial and production requirements; it is not a draft, accepted manuscript, proof, or provisional version.

When an Online First article is subsequently assigned to a complete regular issue, its existing record is updated with the final volume, issue, page range or article identifier, and complete citation information. The DOI and original first-publication date remain unchanged. On the public article record, an Online First Version of Record should identify that date as First published online so that it is not confused with the later complete-issue publication date. If DOI activation is still being processed when a record is displayed, the article page identifies the status transparently as DOI pending and retains the same article record and original first-publication date when the DOI becomes active. Issue assignment does not constitute a second publication, a second acceptance decision, or a second peer-review process.

Only bibliographic information required for issue assignment may be added routinely. Research findings, interpretation, authorship, and other substantive scholarly content must not be changed silently. Post-publication errors or integrity concerns are handled through the journal's correction, expression-of-concern, retraction, and version-control procedures.

The complete rules governing the publication schedule, complete-issue release, delayed issues, actual publication dates, Online First status, citation, DOI continuity, issue assignment, and version control are stated in the Publication Schedule & Online First Policy .

Policy status: Active
Policy owner: J-HyTEL Editorial Board
Last reviewed: 9 August 2026

The journal reviews this Publication Ethics hub and its linked subject-specific policies periodically and when relevant ethical, legal, editorial, or technical standards change. Material revisions are published on the journal website and, where appropriate, communicated through announcements, author or reviewer guidance, templates, forms, and editorial procedures.

Dedicated subject-specific policies govern their respective subjects. This hub should summarise and link to those policies rather than create competing rules. Historical actions are assessed under the policy and licence applicable at the relevant time, unless a later rule is expressly stated to apply retrospectively and doing so is lawful and fair.