•  
•  

Editorial Policies

The HBRC Journal and its editorial board strictly adhere to and comply with the policies and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Adherence to these guidelines ensures the integrity and transparency of the scholarly literature published within the journal's scope of construction, building materials, housing, and urban development.

Advertisements

The HBRC Journal does not accept commercial advertisements from third parties in either its print or digital versions. This policy is strictly enforced to ensure that all editorial decisions remain entirely independent and are based exclusively on scholarly merit, free from any commercial or financial influence.

Affiliations

All listed authors must provide a full and accurate declaration of their institutional affiliations to clearly identify where the research was approved, supported, and conducted. Affiliations must be as detailed as possible and must include the department, faculty or college, university or center, city with zip code or P.O. Box, and country.

• Primary vs. Current Affiliations: The primary affiliation for each author must be the institution where the majority of the research was performed. If an author has changed institutions before the article is published, the affiliation corresponding to where the work was carried out must remain the primary listing, with the author’s current address provided as a footnote. Please note that institutional information and addresses will not be updated or changed after the article has been published.

Special Status and Integrity

• Non-Research Articles: For reviews, commentaries, or opinion pieces, authors should provide their current institutional affiliation at the time of submission.
• Independent Researchers: Authors who do not have a formal institutional affiliation at the time of publication must explicitly indicate their independent status.
• Integrity Statement: An accurate reflection of affiliations is a requirement of publication. The misrepresentation of affiliation is considered a form of scientific misconduct; the HBRC Journal reserves the right to contact the relevant institutions to assist in investigations of such cases.

Appeals and Complaints

The HBRC Journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding appeals against editorial decisions and complaints concerning the journal’s management of the peer-review process. While the editorial team welcomes well-founded appeals, authors should note that rejection decisions based on editorial priorities or assessments of scholarly significance are generally not subject to appeal.

Grounds for Appeal

• An appeal will only be considered if authors can provide a compelling case based on:
  • A demonstrable factual error made by a reviewer or the editor that directly influenced the final decision.
  • Significant new data or evidence that was not available during the initial evaluation.
  • A clear case of bias or a breach of ethics during the peer-review process.

Procedure and Timeline

• Authors wishing to appeal a rejection must submit a formal letter to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of the decision. The letter must include the manuscript tracking number and a point-by-point rebuttal to the reviewers' and editors' comments. To ensure a fair and objective re-evaluation, the appeal will be reviewed by an independent senior editor or board member not involved in the original assessment.

Editorial Expectations

• Priority: Appeals are processed as a secondary priority to new submissions; therefore, a final decision may take several weeks.
• Finality: Only one appeal is permitted per manuscript. The outcome of this independent review is final.
• Recommendation: If an appeal does not meet the criteria for factual error or bias, authors are strongly encouraged to submit their work to another publication to avoid unnecessary delays.

Acknowledgment

All contributors who do not meet the four essential criteria for authorship must be listed in the Acknowledgments section. Authors should clearly describe the nature of the support provided, such as technical assistance, administrative support, general supervision, or donations in kind (e.g., materials or equipment).

Mandatory Permissions

Because individuals named in this section may be perceived as endorsing the study’s data and conclusions, the corresponding author must obtain written permission from every person being acknowledged. This documentation must be available to the journal office upon request.

AI and Technical Assistance

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies for content generation or writing assistance must be explicitly declared within this section, specifying the tool used and the nature of its contribution.

Funding and Resource Recognition

All sources of financial support must be recognized by naming the supporting body in full, followed by the specific grant number(s) in square brackets. If the research was conducted without external funding, authors should state: “This research received no external funding.”

Authorship

Authorship Principles and Criteria

The HBRC Journal adheres to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Authorship identifies those who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a research study and are therefore accountable for its content.

Authorship Requirements

To qualify as an author, every individual listed must meet all four of the following criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who have contributed to the study but do not meet all four criteria (e.g., those providing technical help, writing assistance, or general supervision) should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section.

Authorship Integrity

• Exclusion of AI: Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) do not satisfy authorship criteria and must not be listed as authors or co-authors.
• Scientific Misconduct: The journal strictly prohibits gift, guest, or ghost authorship. Misrepresentation of authorship is considered a violation of publishing ethics.
• Guarantors: One or more authors must act as guarantors, taking public responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole from inception to publication.

Role of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for managing all communication between the journal and co-authors. They must ensure that all listed authors have approved the manuscript and the author order before submission.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are strongly advised to finalize the author list and order prior to submission. Any request to add, delete, or rearrange author names during the revision stage must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief and accompanied by a written confirmation from all authors (including those being added or removed). No changes to authorship, including the Corresponding Author or the author sequence, are permitted after a manuscript has been officially accepted for publication.

Authorship Criteria

1. To qualify as an author, every individual must satisfy all four of the following criteria, as defined by theICMJE:
   • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
   • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
   • Final approval of the version to be published.
   • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
2. If a contributor does not meet all four criteria, they must not be listed as an author but should be recognized in the Acknowledgment section.
3. Non-Qualifying Activities: The following activities, while valuable, do not independently justify authorship:
   • Acquisition of funding.
   • General administrative support or data collection.
   • General supervision of a research group.
4. Order and Changes to Authorship:
   • Author Order: The sequence of names should reflect the relative contribution of each author and must be decided collectively by the author group.
   • Changes: Once a manuscript is submitted, the author list and order cannot be altered without written consent from every author, including those being added or removed.
   • Finality: No changes to authorship, including the Corresponding Author or the author sequence, are permitted after the manuscript has been officially accepted for publication.
5. Author Contribution Statement (CRediT): Authors are required to provide a detailed description of individual contributions using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). Categories include:
   • Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, and Validation.
   • Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, and Data Curation.
   • Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, and Visualization.
   • Supervision, Project Administration, and Funding Acquisition.
   One or more authors must be designated as "guarantors," taking public responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole from its inception to the published version of record.
6. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy: In accordance with COPE and ICMJE standards, Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) (e.g., ChatGPT) do not meet authorship criteria and must not be listed as authors or co-authors. Authors are fully accountable for any AI-generated content and must disclose its use in the Acknowledgment or Methods section.
7. Citations and Publication Ethics:
   • Evidence-Based Claims: All research findings must be supported by relevant, peer-reviewed literature.
   • Citation Manipulation: Authors must avoid excessive self-citation or "citation cartels" (prearranged agreements between groups to cite each other). Such practices are classified as research misconduct under COPE guidelines and may result in rejection or retraction.
   • Originality: Submission implies the work is entirely original and not under consideration by another publication.

Contribution Details

The HBRC Journal mandates that all authors provide a transparent and detailed account of their individual contributions to ensure scientific accountability and proper credit. Corresponding authors are required to acknowledge these specific efforts using the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework during the submission process.

As applicable, authors should categorize their involvement into roles such as Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Visualization, Supervision, Project Administration, and Funding Acquisition. The description must also distinguish between those responsible for the original draft preparation and those who performed the critical review and editing of the intellectual content. These contribution details will be published as part of the permanent record alongside the final article to provide the scientific community with a clear understanding of each contributor's input.

Furthermore, the author group must designate one or more individuals as guarantors. The guarantor assumes public responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the entire work, overseeing the project's development from its initial inception to the published version of record. To qualify for listing, every author must satisfy all four mandatory criteria established by the ICMJE, including the final approval of the version to be published and the agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the research. Individuals who contributed in a more limited capacity that does not meet these benchmarks should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section instead.

Citation Principles and Ethics

The HBRC Journal requires that all research and non-research articles cite relevant, timely, and verified literature to substantiate claims. Authors must ensure that every statement relying on external findings or general knowledge is supported by an accurate citation.

Citation Integrity and Manipulation

In accordance with COPE guidelines, the journal strictly prohibits citation manipulation. This includes:

• Excessive self-citation of the authors' own previous work.
• Coordinated citation efforts (citation rings) intended to artificially inflate the metrics of specific authors or journals.
• Gratuitous citations of articles published in the HBRC Journal solely to influence journal rankings.

Source Selection and Quality

• Primary Sources: Authors must cite original research reports directly rather than secondary sources like review articles.
• Retractions and Predatory Works: Authors are responsible for verifying that their references do not include retracted articles or material published in predatory/pseudo-journals.
• Preprints: If a preprint must be cited, it must be clearly identified as a 'Preprint' in the reference list and include its DOI.
• Datasets and Code: All publicly available datasets and software code used in the research must be cited using persistent identifiers (DOIs).
• Prohibited Sources: AI-generated material is not acceptable as a primary source. Personal communications should be avoided unless they provide essential information not available elsewhere, and they require explicit written permission from the source.

Formatting and Technical Standards

References must be numbered consecutively in the order they appear in the text using Arabic numerals in square brackets following the Vancouver style. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all bibliographic data; whenever possible, citations should be verified through a recognized source such as PubMed or CrossRef. If you are uncertain about the appropriateness of a citation, please consult the HBRC Journal Editorial Office for guidance.

Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests Policy

The HBRC Journal maintains that transparency is the fundamental pillar of scientific integrity and public trust. In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) standards, we require all participants in the peer-review and publication process to reveal any relationships or interests that could be perceived as biasing the objectivity of the research. A competing interest exists when a secondary interest, such as financial gain or personal association, has the potential to influence professional judgment regarding a primary interest, such as the validity of the research findings.

Author Obligations and Disclosure Requirements

Every individual listed as an author is responsible for providing a complete declaration of interests. Authors must report all relevant financial and non-financial relationships that existed within the 36 months prior to the submission of the work. This requirement is in place regardless of whether the author believes the relationship actually influenced their work; the perception of conflict is considered as significant as an actual conflict.

Financial Competing Interests

Authors must specify any direct or indirect financial support related to the research. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Direct Funding: Research grants, fellowships, or industrial sponsorships.
• Personal Compensation: Fees for consulting, speaking engagements, expert testimony, or honoraria.
• Ownership and Assets: Stocks, shares, or direct employment by an organization with a commercial stake in the research outcomes.
• Intellectual Property: Patents (either held, pending, or licensed) and royalty-sharing agreements.

Non-Financial and Personal Interests

Professional or personal associations can be just as influential as financial ties. Authors must declare:

• Institutional Affiliations: Positions on advisory boards, leadership roles in advocacy groups, or committee memberships related to the subject matter.
• Personal Connections: Close relationships with individuals or organizations that could benefit financially or reputationally from the publication.
• Intellectual Bias: Strong ideological, religious, or academic convictions that may interfere with the neutral presentation of data.

Implementation and Workflow

As an independent publisher utilizing the Digital Commons platform, the HBRC Journal has integrated the disclosure process into the standard submission workflow.

• Submission Process: During the initial upload, the corresponding author must complete the mandatory disclosure metadata for the entire author group.
• Standardized Forms: Authors are strongly encouraged to complete the ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form and upload the resulting PDF as a supplementary file to ensure international compliance.
• Declarations in Published Articles: Every article will feature a dedicated "Conflicts of Interest" section before the references. If the authors have no conflicts to report, the following standardized statement will be used: “The authors declare that they have no competing interests regarding the research, authorship, or publication of this work.”.

Editorial and Reviewer Neutrality

To safeguard the integrity of the peer-review process, the journal enforces strict neutrality standards for its staff and reviewers:

• Editorial Recusal: Editors must recuse themselves from managing or making decisions on any manuscript where they have a potential conflict of interest, such as recent collaborations or shared institutional affiliations with the authors.
• Reviewer Independence: Invited reviewers are required to decline an assignment if a competing interest exists that could compromise their impartiality.

Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Transparency is a mandatory requirement for publication in the HBRC Journal. If an undisclosed conflict of interest is identified:

• Pre-publication: The manuscript may be subject to immediate rejection.
• Post-publication: The journal will conduct an investigation in alignment with COPE guidelines. Confirmed breaches of this policy may result in the publication of a formal Correction or, in cases of significant ethical compromise, a Retraction of the article.

Supportive Note: We recognize that professional and personal networks in research are often complex. If you are uncertain whether a particular interest requires disclosure, we encourage you to follow the principle of full transparency and declare it, or contact the HBRC Journal Editorial Office for confidential guidance prior to submission.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions (Post-Publication Changes)

The HBRC Journal is committed to upholding the integrity and accuracy of the scholarly record through transparent post-publication management. In accordance with COPE and ICMJE standards, the journal has established clear protocols for addressing errors, misconduct, and disputes discovered after an article has been released.

1. Corrections (Errata and Corrigenda)

When an error of fact or a significant omission is identified that affects the accuracy of a paper but does not invalidate its core scientific findings, a Correction notice will be published.

• Minor Adjustments: At the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, minor corrections may be applied directly to the digital version of the original article.
• Major Corrections: For more substantive errors, the original article remains unaltered, and a separate corrected version is issued. Both the original and corrected versions will be bidirectionally linked, and a clear statement will be provided to explain the nature of the change.
• Terminology: A Corrigendum typically addresses errors introduced by authors, while an Erratum is used for errors originating from the publisher’s processes.

2. Retractions

The journal issues a Retraction notice in cases where serious methodological flaws, proven research misconduct, or major analytical errors fundamentally undermine the study's conclusions.

• Ethical Standard: Retractions are conducted strictly in alignment with COPE Retraction Guidelines.
• Procedural Integrity: All retractions are intended as a neutral tool to correct the literature rather than to serve as a form of punishment.
• Transparency and Display: To maintain a complete record, the original article will remain available in the archive; however, both the HTML and PDF versions will be digitally watermarked as ‘Retracted’.
• Mandatory Disclosures: Each retraction notice will be bidirectionally linked to the original article and will provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the action. The notice will also explicitly identify the person or group requesting the retraction.
• Authorship Disputes: Retractions are generally not used to resolve disagreements regarding authorship; the preferred approach for such issues is the publication of a corrigendum, provided the change is validated by relevant institutional authorities.

3. Editorial Expressions of Concern

If serious allegations of research or publication misconduct are raised but the subsequent investigation remains inconclusive or requires a significant amount of time to resolve, the Editor-in-Chief may issue an Expression of Concern. This notice alerts readers to potential integrity issues while a thorough investigation is conducted. Once the inquiry is finalized, the Expression of Concern may be superseded by a formal Correction or Retraction.

4. Exceptional Content Removal

The permanent removal of published content is an extreme measure reserved for exceptional circumstances where issues cannot be addressed through a correction or retraction. This includes cases where content is defamatory, infringes upon legal rights, or is the subject of a court order. If an article is removed, the bibliographic metadata (title and authors) will be retained, and a Removal notice will be published in its place to explain the action taken.

Supportive Note: Authors who identify a fundamental error in their published work have a professional obligation to promptly notify the Editorial Office and cooperate with the journal to correct the scientific record.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality and Privacy Policy

The HBRC Journal treats all submitted manuscripts as privileged communications and confidential documents.

Editorial Confidentiality

Editorial staff, handling editors, and reviewers are prohibited from disclosing information about a manuscript; including its receipt, content, status in the review process, or final decision; to anyone not directly involved in the publication process. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submission must not be used for personal research or advantage without the express written consent of the author.

Double-Blind Anonymity

To ensure an unbiased evaluation, the journal operates a double-blind review system. The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors throughout and after the process.

Reviewer and Author Obligations

• Reviewer Restrictions: Reviewers must not share the manuscript with colleagues or involve trainees in the assessment without prior written permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
• AI Protection: To safeguard research confidentiality, reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading any part of a manuscript to Generative AI tools or LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT).
• Correspondence Privacy: Authors are expected to treat all communications with the journal, including reviewer reports and editorial letters, as confidential.

Exceptions for Integrity Investigations

In accordance with COPE guidelines , the journal may breach confidentiality if research or publication misconduct is suspected. In such instances:

1. The Editor-in-Chief may disclose relevant details to the authors’ institutions, funding bodies, or ethics committees to facilitate a resolution.
2. Information may be shared with other Editors-in-Chief if the suspected misconduct is believed to involve multiple journals, restricted to the minimum factual content required.

Copyright Policy

Authors retain all copyright without any restrictions. All published articles in HBRC Journal are licensed under CC BY Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. It is permissible for authors to use a copy of their articles in their research activities, own websites, institutional and/or funder’s web sites by providing full citation to published manuscripts in HBRC Journal. Author(s) have the right to transmit, print, and share the first submitted copies with colleagues, professional positions, and career with citing to HBRC Journal publication.

Data Integrity: Falsification and Fabrication Policy

The HBRC Journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward any form of research misconduct that compromises the accuracy of the scientific record. In accordance with COPE and ICMJE standards, the journal distinguishes between two primary forms of data-related misconduct:

• Data Fabrication: The intentional creation of fictitious research findings, data points, or results that were never actually obtained.
• Data Falsification: The deliberate manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the selective omission/alteration of data or images to provide a misleading impression of the study's outcomes. This includes the inappropriate manipulation of digital images to obscure, move, or introduce features that alter the scientific meaning.

Author Obligations and Transparency

At the time of submission, authors must guarantee that all data presented are original, accurate, and an honest reflection of the work conducted. Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript, specifying how and where the underlying data can be accessed.

Data Access and Long-term Retention

To facilitate the evaluation process and support reproducibility, authors are required to retain all raw data underlying their manuscripts for a minimum of 10 years after publication. Authors must be prepared to provide these original, unedited data files; including original image captures; upon request from the Editors at any stage of the peer-review or post-publication process.

Investigation and Sanctions

If a concern regarding data integrity is raised, the HBRC Journal will conduct a thorough investigation followingCOPE guidelines. If the original data cannot be produced or if misconduct is confirmed:

• Pre-publication: The manuscript will be rejected immediately.
• Post-publication: The article will be retracted and digitally watermarked accordingly.
• Reporting: In cases of proven fraud, the journal will notify the authors’ institutions, funding bodies, and/or relevant regulatory authorities.

Supportive Note: The journal recognizes that minor errors can occur. Authors who identify an unintentional error in their data after publication are encouraged to contact the Editorial Office immediately to facilitate a formal Correction rather than a retraction.

Research Data and Reproducibility Policy

The HBRC Journal advocates for the transparent sharing of research data to bolster scientific reproducibility, ensure accountability, and accelerate the progression of knowledge. As an independent publisher utilizing the Digital Commons platform, the journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations regarding data integrity.

1. Data Sharing Expectations and Principles

Authors are strongly encouraged to make the datasets underlying their research results publicly accessible at the earliest possible opportunity, provided that such sharing does not violate legal, ethical, or participant confidentiality requirements. The journal supports the FAIR Data Principles, maintaining that research data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. Shared data must be sufficiently documented to allow other researchers to verify the findings and utilize the data in future scholarly investigations.

2. Mandatory Data Availability Statements

All manuscripts submitted to the HBRC Journal must include a Data Availability Statement (DAS). This statement should be positioned under a dedicated heading before the reference section and must clearly describe where and how the supporting data can be accessed. If data cannot be shared, authors must provide a detailed scientific or legal justification.

Acceptable examples of Data Availability Statements include:

• Data Available in a Public Repository: "The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT LINK/DOI]".
• Data Available on Request: "The datasets supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request".
• Data Included in the Article: "All data generated during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files]".
• No Data Available: "No new datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study".

3. Data Access, Retention, and Misconduct

To facilitate the peer-review process and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record, authors are required to retain all raw data and analytic procedures for a minimum of 10 years following publication. Editors reserve the right to request original, unprocessed data (including unedited images) at any time during or after the publication process. Failure to provide the requested data or evidence of data manipulation, fabrication, or falsification constitutes serious research misconduct. In such cases, the HBRC Journal will follow COPE guidelines , which may result in:

• Immediate rejection of a submitted manuscript.
• Retraction of the published version of record.
• Notification of the authors' institutional ethics committees or funding bodies.

Supportive Note: The HBRC Journal recognizes that data sharing requirements vary across disciplines. Authors are encouraged to consult the Editorial Office if they require guidance on selecting an appropriate repository or drafting a compliant Data Availability Statement.

Desk Rejection Policy and Preliminary Evaluation

The HBRC Journal is committed to an efficient and rigorous review process, aiming to provide authors with an initial editorial decision within an average of 30 days from submission. To maintain high standards of scholarly excellence and respect the time of our volunteer reviewer pool, all manuscripts undergo a multi-stage Initial Screening before being considered for external peer review.

1. The Preliminary Screening Process

Upon receipt through our online Manuscript Tracking System, the Editorial Office evaluates every submission for basic compliance, including:

• Completeness: Verification that all required sections, metadata (including ORCIDs), and statements (Funding, COI, Data Availability) are present.
• Format Compliance: Adherence to the journal’s specific template and style guidelines.
• Plagiarism Screening: All manuscripts are automatically screened using iThenticate software.

2. Criteria for Desk Rejection

The Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor may decide to reject a manuscript without external review if it meets any of the following criteria:

• Out of Scope: The research topic does not align with the journal’s focus on construction, building materials, housing, or urban development.
• Ethical Noncompliance: Identification of significant plagiarism, suspected duplicate submission.
• Insufficient Scientific Merit: The study lacks the necessary originality, novelty, or significant contribution required to advance the field.
• Fundamental Design Flaws: The manuscript exhibits major methodological weaknesses or a research design that cannot support the study’s conclusions.
• Lack of Clarity: The study objectives are poorly defined, or the manuscript is so disorganized or incomplete that its scientific value cannot be assessed.
• Language Quality: The manuscript is not written in clear, idiomatic English or contains pervasive grammatical errors that obscure the scientific content.
• Guideline Deviations: Failure to follow the Instructions for Authors or refusal to adopt required reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, ARRIVE).

3. Editorial Decisions and Appeals

Manuscripts that pass this initial evaluation are assigned to a Handling Editor with subject-matter expertise to manage the double-blind peer review process.

If a manuscript is desk-rejected, the decision reflects editorial priorities and is generally not subject to appeal. In such cases, the journal encourages authors to revise their work and consider submission to a more suitable publication. If a submission is rejected solely for formatting or language issues, the Editor may, at their discretion, allow the author to resubmit the corrected version as a new entry.

Supportive Note: We aim to provide feedback as promptly as possible to ensure that research found unsuitable for the HBRC Journal can be redirected to other venues without unnecessary delay.

Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication Policy

The HBRC Journal requires authors to certify at the time of submission that their manuscript is entirely original and is not currently being evaluated by any other publication. Submitting essentially the same research to multiple journals simultaneously is recognized as unethical scientific misconduct and is strictly prohibited under COPE and ICMJE standards. To safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record, the journal utilizes iThenticate software to screen all submissions for unacceptable overlap with existing literature.

In accordance with international ethical frameworks, the journal may consider secondary or translated publications only in specific, justifiable circumstances, such as disseminating guidelines or critical findings to a distinct audience. For such submissions to be eligible, authors must secure explicit written permission from the original publisher and copyright holder and fully disclose the work's history to the HBRC Journal Editor. Any authorized secondary publication must be clearly identified as such for readers and must include a comprehensive bibliographic citation to the original primary source.

While the HBRC Journal does not classify preprints shared on recognized servers as duplicate publications, authors have a professional obligation to disclose their existence during the submission process. If an unauthorized duplicate submission or redundant publication is identified, the journal reserves the right to reject the manuscript immediately or, if discovered after publication, issue a formal Retraction notice and notify the authors' affiliated institutions.

Supportive Note: We encourage authors to consult the HBRC Journal Editorial Office prior to submission if they are uncertain whether a previous presentation (such as a conference abstract or thesis) might be considered a prior publication.

Funding Disclosure Policy

The HBRC Journal mandates that all contributors provide a comprehensive and accurate accounting of the financial support received for their research and the preparation of their manuscript. This requirement encompasses direct monetary grants, industrial sponsorships, fellowships, and indirect support such as the provision of specialized equipment, experimental materials, or professional writing assistance.

1. Disclosure of Funder Roles

Transparency regarding the influence of sponsors is essential for maintaining scientific integrity. Authors must explicitly describe the specific involvement of the sponsor(s) at every stage of the study, including:

• Study design and conceptualization.
• Data collection, management, and analysis.
• The drafting or editing of the manuscript.
• The final decision to approve and submit the work for publication.

If the funding body or sponsor had no such involvement in these processes, authors must include a clear statement to that effect.

2. Standardized Reporting Formats

Effective January 2026, funding disclosures must be situated under the "Statements and Declarations" heading, placed immediately after the References section. Submissions that lack these required statements will be returned as incomplete.

Authors must adhere to the following formatting standards:

• Naming Conventions: Provide the full legal name of the funding agency (utilizing the Open Funder Registry for standardized nomenclature where possible).
• Grant Identifiers: List the specific grant or contract numbers in square brackets following the funder's name.
• Employment-Based Support: If the research received no specific grant but was conducted as part of the authors' regular professional duties, the employer should be identified as the source of support.
• No External Funding: In instances where no external financial assistance was provided, authors must use the standardized phrase: "This research received no external funding."

3. Accuracy and Accountability

Authors bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all financial information is accurate and compliant with the specific requirements of their funding bodies. Because these disclosures are integrated into the article's metadata and become a permanent part of the scholarly record, any identified failure to disclose relevant support may result in rejection or post-publication amendments in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Images Integrity and Figure Submission Policy

The HBRC Journal requires that all images and figures included in a manuscript provide direct, valuable support to the reported research and avoid purely illustrative content. As an independent publisher adhering to COPE and ICMJE standards, the journal maintains strict protocols regarding technical quality, ethical transparency, and data integrity for all visual materials.

1. Technical Specifications and Formatting

• Submission Standards: Figures must be of high quality and uploaded as separate files during the submission process. Upon acceptance, authors are required to provide source files in either vector formats (e.g., Illustrator, EPS) or bitmap formats (e.g., TIFF, JPEG).
• Resolution and Citations: Bitmap images must have a minimum resolution of 300 dpi. All figures must be cited in the text in consecutive numerical order (e.g., Fig. 1, Figs. 2–4), and multi-part figures should be denoted by lowercase letters (a, b, c).
• Captions and Labels: Figure captions should be placed below the image, styled in 9-point Times New Roman, boldface, and non-italic. Titles and detailed explanations must reside in the legends rather than on the illustrations themselves to ensure legibility when the figure is reduced for publication.
• Units and Nomenclature: All measurements within figures should be presented in SI units or other internationally accepted units.

2. Ethical Standards and Image Integrity

• Data Representation: Experimental images, including microscopy and radiological captures, must be an accurate reflection of the original data. For "before-and-after" comparisons, images must be taken with the same intensity, direction, and color of light.
• Image Manipulation: The journal classifies deceptive image manipulation as a serious form of scientific misconduct.
  • Permissible Adjustments: Only minor adjustments (e.g., brightness, contrast, color balance) are allowed, provided they are applied uniformly to the entire image and do not obscure or eliminate original information.
  • Prohibited Actions: No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.
  • Composite Images: Constructing figures from different experiments or fields is discouraged; if necessary, the different parts must be clearly demarcated by dividing lines and explained in the legend.
• Original Data Access: Authors must be prepared to provide original, unedited, and unprocessed images (including original image captures and blots) upon request from the Editorial Office. Failure to produce original data may result in the immediate rejection of the manuscript or the retraction of a published article.

3. Permissions, Privacy, and AI Disclosure

• Third-Party Material: Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to reuse copyrighted material from third parties, including illustrations, photographs, and tables. The original source must always be cited, regardless of its copyright status.
• Artificial Intelligence: If Generative AI tools were used to create or assist in the generation of figures or diagrams, authors must disclose this use transparently in the methods section or a dedicated disclosure statement. AI must not be used to create or manipulate original research data.

Compliance Note: By submitting a manuscript, authors grant the journal a non-exclusive license to archive and preserve the figures as part of the permanent scholarly record. Contributors should also utilize the CRediT taxonomy to acknowledge the specific roles of individuals involved in "Visualization".

Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Policy

The HBRC Journal upholds the highest standards of scientific ethics and maintains a zero-tolerance policy regarding all forms of research misconduct. In alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) standards, the journal proactively identifies and addresses violations that threaten the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Data Integrity: Fabrication and Falsification

The journal distinguishes between two severe forms of data-related misconduct:

• Data Fabrication: The intentional creation of fictitious research findings or results that were never actually obtained.
• Data Falsification: The deceptive manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, including the selective omission of "inconvenient" results to provide a misleading impression of the study's outcomes. Authors must ensure all findings are an accurate and honest reflection of their work. To safeguard transparency, authors are required to retain all raw data for at least 10 years and must provide these files upon editorial request.

2. Ethical Graphic Standards (Image Manipulation)

Figures must directly support the scientific narrative and accurately represent the original experimental data.

• Permissible Adjustments: Minor modifications to brightness, contrast, or color balance are only acceptable if they are applied uniformly to the entire image and do not obscure or eliminate original data.
• Prohibited Actions: No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, moved, removed, or introduced.
• Transparency: If a figure is a composite of multiple experiments or exposures, this must be clearly demarcated with dividing lines and explained in the legend. Failure to provide unedited, original image files when requested may result in immediate rejection or retraction.

3. Submission Integrity: Duplication and Redundancy

The HBRC Journal strictly prohibits the simultaneous submission of the same work to multiple venues.

• Duplicate Submission: Authors must certify that their manuscript is not currently under evaluation elsewhere.
• Redundant Publication (Salami Slicing): The inappropriate division of a single study’s outcomes into multiple articles to artificially inflate publication counts is considered unethical and is not permitted. Work previously shared as a preprint or in conference proceedings must be disclosed at the time of submission.

4. Citation Integrity

Citations must serve a genuine scholarly purpose and be used to support claims with peer-reviewed literature. The journal will impose sanctions for citation manipulation, which includes:

• Excessive or inappropriate self-citation.
• "Citation cartels" or prearrangements between groups to cite each other’s work unfairly to boost metrics.

5. Authorship Ethics and Attribution

Authorship is reserved for individuals who have made substantive intellectual contributions to the study’s design, execution, or interpretation.

• Inclusion: All individuals who meet authorship criteria, including students and laboratory technicians, must be listed.
• Accountability: Every author must review and approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to be held accountable for its integrity.
• Ghost and Guest Authorship: Excluding significant contributors (ghost authorship) or adding individuals who do not meet the criteria (guest/honorary authorship) is strictly prohibited.

6. Investigation and Sanctions

If misconduct is suspected, the HBRC Journal will initiate an investigation following COPE flowcharts.

• Pre-publication: Evidence of misconduct will lead to immediate rejection.
• Post-publication: Confirmed breaches of integrity will result in a formal Retraction with a digital watermark applied to the article.
• Notification: The journal reserves the right to notify the authors' affiliated institutions, funding bodies, or regulatory authorities in cases of proven misconduct.

Supportive Note: The HBRC Journal values intellectual honesty and encourages authors to proactively contact the Editorial Office if they discover an error in their work, allowing for a collaborative correction of the scientific record.

Open Access Policy

The HBRC Journal is an open-access journal. All published content is freely available to read, download, copy, distribute, and share for non-commercial purposes without permission, as long as proper credit is given. The journal follows the Creative Commons CC BY-4.0 Deed.

The journal and its editorial board fully adhere to and comply with the policies and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editors Responsibilities and Editorial Workflow

The HBRC Journal maintains a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system to ensure all published articles meet the highest international standards of scientific quality. The journal and its board fully adhere to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations for scholarly work.

1. Editorial Independence and Fair Play

Editorial decisions are based exclusively on originality, scientific merit, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Editors must evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors' background, including nationality, gender, or institutional affiliation. The HBRC Journal ensures that its commercial interests or publisher relationships do not influence editorial judgments.

2. Initial Screening and Triage

All submissions are processed through the online Manuscript Tracking System.

• Administrative Check: The Editorial Office screens for completeness, adherence to the journal's template, and the presence of mandatory ethical disclosures.
• Plagiarism Detection: Every manuscript is automatically screened using iThenticate software; submissions with an unacceptable similarity index are rejected immediately.
• Editorial Triage: The Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor assesses the study’s objectives and scientific contribution. Manuscripts that are out of scope, of insufficient quality, or ethically noncompliant undergo desk rejection at this stage.

3. Assignment and Peer Review Management

Manuscripts passing triage are assigned to a Handling Editor with specific subject expertise and no conflicts of interest.

• Reviewer Selection: The Handling Editor selects at least two external, independent experts for a double-blind review.
• Anonymity: Identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed from each other throughout the process to prevent bias.
• Confidentiality: Editors treat all manuscripts as privileged communications and must not use unpublished data for their own research without the author’s written consent.

4. Handling Conflicts of Interest

• Recusal: Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where they have a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest.
• Editor-as-Author: If an Editor or Board Member submits a manuscript, the system automatically reassigns it to an independent editor who has no ties to the author. The submitting editor is excluded from all stages of the review and decision-making for that work.

5. Final Decisions and Quality Assurance

The Handling Editor makes an editorial recommendation based on reviewer reports, but the final decision to accept or reject resides with the Editorial Board. Editors strive to provide a first decision within an average of 30 days. If major flaws are identified post-publication, editors accept the responsibility of correcting the record promptly via errata or retractions.

6. Use of AI in Editorial Processes

To safeguard author rights, editors are strictly prohibited from uploading any part of a submitted manuscript to Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for screening or evaluation.

Supportive Note: The HBRC Journal provides authors with a transparent mechanism for appeals. Rejection decisions based on scientific priority are generally final, but genuine appeals supported by new evidence will be reviewed by an independent board member.

Reviewers Responsibilities and Peer Review Guidelines

The HBRC Journal relies on a dedicated pool of independent experts to maintain the scientific quality and ethical integrity of its published record. Peer review serves as an essential component of formal scholarly communication, providing editors with the critical analysis needed to reach fair, evidence-based decisions.

1. Professional Qualifications and Recusal

• Expertise Requirement: Reviewers must accept assignments only if they possess sufficient technical knowledge of the subject matter to provide a thorough and reliable assessment.
• Timeliness: Experts who know they cannot meet the agreed-upon timeframe for evaluation should decline the invitation immediately to prevent delays in the editorial process.
• Conflicts of Interest (COI): Reviewers must declare any potential personal, financial, or professional relationships that could bias their evaluation and must recuse themselves from the review process if such a conflict exists. This includes avoiding manuscripts from recent collaborators, competitors, or those affiliated with the same institution.

2. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are required to conduct an objective, critical evaluation of the manuscript based on the following indicators of scientific merit:

• Originality and Contribution: The degree to which the work provides novel insights and significantly advances the existing field of study.
• Methodological Soundness: The appropriateness and rigor of the research design, protocols, and analytical procedures.
• Clarity of Purpose: The accuracy and precision with which the research questions or hypotheses are formulated.
• Ethical Integrity: Compliance with international standards for human or animal subjects, including the Declaration of Helsinki and ARRIVE guidelines.
• Data and Statistics: The rigor of the statistical analysis and the legitimacy of the interpretations drawn from the results.
• Presentation Quality: The clarity of writing, organizational structure, and the accuracy of the bibliographic referencing.

3. Reviewer Recommendations

Upon completion of the evaluation, reviewers provide a detailed report with constructive feedback and a final recommendation of one of the following outcomes:

• Accept (Publish Unaltered): The work is of exceptional quality and requires no further modification.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires small clarifications or technical edits.
• Major Revision: Substantive changes or additional data are required before a final decision can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript fails to meet the necessary scientific contribution or ethical benchmarks.

4. Confidentiality and Privileged Communication

• Nondisclosure: All submitted materials are considered privileged communications; reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript with third parties without prior authorization from the Handling Editor.
• Personal Advantage: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from utilizing information or ideas obtained during the review process for their own benefit or for the benefit of any other person or organization.
• Data Disposal: To protect author rights and privacy, reviewers should delete electronic files and destroy any physical copies of the manuscript once the review is submitted.

5. Integrity and Identification of Sources

Reviewers play a vital role in identifying potential scientific misconduct. They should:

• Identify significant published work that the authors have failed to cite.
• Ensure that any observations or arguments derived from external sources are supported by correct citations.
• Alert the Editorial Board to any substantive similarities between the submission and other works, including suspected plagiarism, duplicate submission, or redundant publication.

6. Policy on Generative AI in Reviewing

To safeguard the confidentiality of research and the intellectual property of authors, the HBRC Journal prohibits the use of Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate peer-review reports. Reviewers must not upload any part of a submitted manuscript to AI platforms, as these systems may store data for future training, thereby violating author privacy and confidentiality rights. If an AI tool was used exclusively to improve the language of a report, this use must be transparently disclosed to the editor.

Author’s Responsibilities and Authorship Principles

The HBRC Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of transparency and scientific integrity. Submission of a manuscript implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the work complies with the journal’s ethical policies.

1. Reporting Standards and Data Integrity

Authors are required to present an accurate, transparent, and honest account of the research conducted. The manuscript must include an objective discussion of the work's significance, supported by underlying data that is represented truthfully. Any form of data fabrication or falsification; including the inappropriate manipulation of images; is strictly prohibited and constitutes serious research misconduct. Authors must provide sufficient experimental detail and references to allow other researchers to replicate the findings.

2. Data Access and Long-Term Retention

To support reproducibility and facilitate editorial review, authors must be prepared to provide public access to raw data upon request. In accordance with ICMJE best practices, authors are required to retain all primary data and analytic procedures for a minimum of 10 years following publication.

3. Originality and Publication Ethics

Authors must certify that their work is entirely original.

• Plagiarism: The journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism in any form, including the unattributed use of others' ideas or words and self-plagiarism (text recycling).
• Duplicate Submission: It is unethical to submit essentially the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.
• Prior Publication: Submission implies the work has not been published previously, except as a preprint, thesis, or conference abstract, all of which must be disclosed at the time of submission.

4. Disclosure of Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Transparency regarding influences is mandatory:

• Competing Interests: All authors must disclose any financial or non-financial relationships that could be perceived as biasing the research.
• Funding: Authors must clearly acknowledge all sources of financial support, identifying the funding body and specific grant numbers. The role of the sponsor in the study design, data collection, or decision to publish must be explicitly stated.

5. Authorship Criteria and Responsibilities

The HBRC Journal follows the ICMJE four-point criteria for authorship. To qualify as an author, an individual must have:

1. Made substantial contributions to the study's conception, design, or data acquisition/analysis.
2. Drafted or critically revised the work for intellectual content.
3. Given final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreed to be accountable for the integrity of the entire work.

Corresponding Author Duties: This individual acts as the primary contact and is responsible for ensuring all legitimate contributors are listed as co-authors, managing communications between the journal and co-authors, and ensuring that the final manuscript is approved by the entire group. Contributorship (CRediT): Authors are required to use the CRediT taxonomy to specify individual roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization). Individuals who provided limited support (e.g., purely technical help or general supervision) should be recognized in the Acknowledgments section.

6. Correction of the Scholarly Record

If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they bear a professional obligation to notify the Editorial Office immediately. Authors must cooperate with the editors to publish an erratum/correction or, in cases where the findings are fundamentally undermined, a formal retraction.

Supportive Note: The HBRC Journal utilizes iThenticate software to verify the originality of all submissions. We encourage authors to utilize ORCID identifiers to ensure proper attribution and visibility of their professional contributions.

Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation Policy

The HBRC Journal is committed to a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review system designed to uphold the highest international standards of scientific excellence. As an independent publisher on the Digital Commons platform, the journal strictly adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the ICMJE Recommendations for reporting and conducting scholarly work.

1. Initial Editorial Triage

Every manuscript submitted through the online Manuscript Tracking System first undergoes a comprehensive preliminary assessment. The Editorial Office performs an administrative check for completeness, template compliance, and scope relevance, while also conducting mandatory plagiarism screening via iThenticate. Submissions that are found to be out of scope, methodologically fundamentally flawed, or ethically noncompliant are desk-rejected at this stage without entering external review.

2. The Double-Blind Review Process

Submissions that pass initial triage are assigned to a Handling Editor with specific subject-matter expertise. The HBRC Journal utilizes a double-blind peer-review model, ensuring that:

• Anonymity: Authors remain unaware of the reviewers' identities, and reviewers do not have access to the names or institutional affiliations of the authors.
• Objectivity: This masking of identities is critical to eliminating potential bias related to an author's reputation, gender, nationality, or institutional background. Each manuscript is typically evaluated by at least two external, independent experts who provide detailed, constructive feedback regarding the study's originality, statistical rigor, and ethical soundness.

3. Decision Authority and Possible Outcomes

The Editorial Board holds the final authority for all publication decisions, utilizing reviewer recommendations as a primary guide. Reviewers recommend one of four outcomes: Accept (Unaltered), Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. If a majority of reviewers suggest rejection, or if a single reviewer identifies a fundamental flaw that undermines the entire study, the manuscript will be declined.

4. Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight

In instances involving serious ethical, security, or biosecurity concerns, the journal’s Research Integrity team may initiate an expanded evaluation. Beyond standard peer review, the academic editor may consult with external regulatory experts or specialized ethical committees. Actions taken in these cases may include:

• Appointing additional editors with specialized oversight roles.
• Recruiting reviewers with specific ethical or forensic expertise.
• Immediate decline of further consideration for the submission.

5. Confidentiality and Artificial Intelligence

All submitted manuscripts are treated as privileged communications. To protect author rights and maintain research confidentiality, the HBRC Journal strictly prohibits reviewers and editors from using Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) or AI-assisted technologies to process or evaluate manuscripts. Reviewers are required to destroy any manuscript copies and delete related electronic files once their evaluation is complete.

Supportive Note: The HBRC Journal aims to provide a first editorial decision within an average of 30 days. Authors who disagree with an editorial decision have the right to file a formal appeal supported by new evidence or a detailed scientific rebuttal.

Peer Review: Editor-as-Author Protocol and Workflow

The HBRC Journal maintains rigorous protocols to manage potential conflicts of interest when an Editor, Guest Editor, or Editorial Board Member submits a manuscript for publication. This policy ensures that all submissions are evaluated based strictly on scholarly merit, remaining entirely unaffected by the author’s institutional affiliation or their specific role within the journal.

1. Initial Submission Stage

• Flagging the Conflict Early: Upon submission through the online Manuscript Tracking System, the Editorial Office performs an initial screen to determine if any author listed on the manuscript holds an editorial role. If a conflict is detected, the manuscript is immediately flagged and reassigned to a higher-level independent editor to prevent any biased handling.
• Mandatory Disclosure: The editor-author is required to explicitly declare their dual role in the "Conflicts of Interest" section of the manuscript. If this declaration is missing, the Editorial Office will formally request an editorial disclosure statement before proceeding with the evaluation.

2. Editorial Assignment and Independence

• Reassignment to Independent Editor: To ensure impartiality, the manuscript must be managed by an editor who has no personal or professional ties to the author. The submitting editor-author is strictly excluded from every stage of the peer-review process, including the selection of reviewers and all internal editorial discussions.
• Documentation for Transparency: Every step of this reassignment, including the specific rationale for the choice of the handling editor, must be recorded in the journal’s tracking system to provide a clear audit trail for research integrity transparency.

3. Rigorous Peer Review Process

• Double-Blind Standard: Manuscripts submitted by editors undergo the same double-blind peer-review process as any other submission, requiring evaluation by at least two external, independent experts with no known conflicts of interest.
• Reviewer Conflict Verification: Potential reviewers must complete a Conflict of Interest (COI) declaration form before they are granted access to the manuscript or allowed to accept the review task. Reviewers are encouraged to recuse themselves if they have a competitive or collaborative relationship with the editor-author.

4. Decision, Acceptance, and Post-Acceptance Transparency

• Independent Decision-Making: The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript rests solely with the independent handling editor. The editor-author has zero input into this final determination.
• Final Ethics Screening: Before a formal acceptance is issued, the Research Integrity team conducts a final ethics check, which includes a second plagiarism screening and verification of all COI statements.
• Public Accountability: Upon publication, the article will include a transparency statement noting the author's editorial role and confirming that the manuscript was handled independently of them. The name of the responsible handling editor may also be displayed to ensure full accountability.

Supportive Note: These measures are aligned with COPE Core Practices to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record and ensure that our readers can trust the objectivity of every article we publish, regardless of the author's professional standing.

Plagiarism and Publication Integrity Policy

The HBRC Journal maintains a zero-tolerance stance toward all categories of plagiarism, classifying such actions as serious scientific misconduct. This policy encompasses the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property, including the unattributed use of text, data, figures, and unique theories from any source, whether published or unpublished. To safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record, the Editorial Office utilizes professional iThenticate software (via the Crossref Similarity Check) to screen every submitted manuscript for overlap with existing literature.

1. Automated Similarity Screening

Submissions found to have an unacceptable similarity index resulting from plagiarism or excessive duplication are subject to immediate rejection before entering the peer-review process. Authors are responsible for ensuring that any reused material—including their own previously published work—is properly acknowledged and that the source of the content is clearly cited.

2. Duplicate Submission and Self-Plagiarism

The journal strictly prohibits duplicate submission, defined as the simultaneous evaluation of essentially the same research in more than one publication outlet. Furthermore, self-plagiarism (text recycling) is considered unethical when an author reproduces substantial portions of their own published writings without explicit justification or proper citation, as this distorts the scientific record.

3. Preprints and Disclosure

In accordance with COPE and ICMJE standards, the HBRC Journal does not classify work shared on recognized preprint servers as prior publication. Authors are permitted to submit such manuscripts provided they disclose the existence of the preprint and provide a link to the archive during the submission process.

4. Misconduct Investigations

If plagiarism is identified at any stage, the journal will proceed according to COPE guidelines. Confirmed instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, or inappropriate manipulation will lead to immediate rejection or formal retraction and may result in the journal notifying the authors' affiliated institutions and funding bodies.

Supportive Note: We encourage authors to utilize the CRediT taxonomy to accurately attribute contributions and ensure that every individual who provided substantive intellectual input is recognized, thereby preventing disputes regarding authorship and credit.

Standards of Reporting for the HBRC Journal

To maintain the integrity of the scholarly record in the fields of construction, building materials, and urban development, the HBRC Journal mandates that all research be communicated in a manner that ensures transparency, verification, and reproducibility. Authors must provide a comprehensive and accurate account of their work, including an objective discussion of its significance.

1. Methodological Rigor and Replication

Manuscripts must follow the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) to reflect the process of scientific discovery.

• Experimental Descriptions: The "Materials and Methods" section must contain sufficient detail to allow other researchers to replicate the work exactly.
• Technical Specifics: For studies involving building materials, authors must identify all materials used, including generic names and vendor details (company, city, and country).
• Equipment: Authors must specify the manufacturer’s name and address for all specialized equipment or software used in laboratory testing or structural analysis.
• Procedures: Previously published methods should be cited, while only new or modified procedures require a detailed description of the modifications and their rationale.

2. Statistical Transparency

The HBRC Journal requires a full accounting of the analytical methods used to ensure scientific merit.

• Detail and Software: Authors must specify all statistical software packages and versions used.
• Metrics: Results should be quantified with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty, such as confidence intervals, rather than relying solely on P-values.
• Clarity: Authors must define all statistical terms, abbreviations, and symbols, and clearly distinguish between prespecified and exploratory (post hoc) analyses.

3. Data Availability and Retention

• Retention: Authors are expected to retain all primary raw data for a minimum of two years following publication, though the journal recommends a 10-year retention period in line with international best practices.
• Data Statements: Every manuscript must include a Data Availability Statement specifying where the underlying data can be accessed (e.g., a public repository, provided as supplementary material, or available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request).

4. Transparency Regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI)

If Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were utilized in the research or writing process, this use must be transparently disclosed.

• Research Phase: AI used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation must be described in the Methods section.
• Writing Phase: AI used for writing assistance should be reported in the Acknowledgment section.
• Accountability: Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, integrity, and accuracy of all content, as AI tools cannot satisfy authorship criteria.

Author Support: By adhering to these standards, authors enhance the visibility and impact of their research, ensuring it contributes reliably to the advancement of the construction and architecture fields. Submissions that do not conform to these reporting guidelines may be returned for revision or rejected prior to peer review.

Use of Third-Party Material

To maintain the integrity of the scholarly record and respect intellectual property rights, the HBRC Journal requires authors to obtain explicit authorization for the inclusion of any content not owned by the contributors. This policy ensures that all published work complies with legal standards and the journal’s open-access framework.

1. Requirement for Permission

Authors must secure written permission from the copyright holder prior to manuscript submission for any material they do not personally own. This mandate applies regardless of the author's own previous involvement with the work if the copyright has been assigned to a third party, such as a previous publisher. Types of third-party material requiring permission include, but are not limited to:

• Text: Long extracts or proprietary descriptions.
• Visuals: Illustrations, photographs, tables, and screenshots.
• Media: Audio files, video clips, and film stills.
• Technical Data: Specific datasets, mathematical notation.

2. Limited Exceptions (Criticism and Review)

Formal permission is generally not required for the use of short extracts of text or limited portions of other materials when used specifically for the purposes of criticism or review. This informal agreement allows for standard academic discourse, provided the original source is properly cited.

3. Reusing Images and Figures

The HBRC Journal emphasizes that images and figures should only be included if they provide substantive value to the research.

• Attribution: For any reused visual, the original source must be cited within the figure legend, even if the material is in the public domain or licensed for unrestricted reuse.
• Confirmation: Authors must include a statement in the figure legend confirming that the appropriate permissions for re-use have been obtained.
• Forensics: The journal reserves the right to use forensic tools to verify image integrity and ensure that modifications do not obscure original information.

4. Author Responsibilities and Warranties

As part of the Journal Author Publishing Agreement, the submitting author provides a warranty that all necessary permissions have been secured.

• Legal Accountability: The responsibility for securing these permissions rests solely with the authors; the journal and its editors cannot accept legal responsibility for errors or omissions regarding third-party rights.
• Documentation: Authors must be prepared to provide documentary evidence of these permissions to the Editorial Office upon request.
• Compliance with CC BY 4.0: Authors must ensure that all third-party content included in the manuscript can be legally distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.

Supportive Note: Navigating copyright can be complex, particularly with older or international sources. If you are unsure whether a specific item requires formal permission, please contact the HBRC Journal Editorial Office for guidance before submitting your manuscript. Missing or incomplete permissions can lead to significant delays in the publication process or immediate desk rejection.

Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

The HBRC Journal recognizes the increasing role of artificial intelligence in scholarly communication and requires authors to maintain transparency and human accountability when utilizing these tools. This policy applies strictly to the writing and editing process and does not extend to the use of AI for data analysis or generating scientific insights during the research phase.

1. Prohibition of AI Authorship

In accordance with COPE and ICMJE standards, generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT or Large Language Models) cannot be listed or credited as authors. Authorship carries a legal and ethical requirement for accountability, which these tools cannot fulfill. Furthermore, AI technologies lack the legal standing to hold or assign copyright.

2. Human Oversight and Responsibility

Authors should utilize AI primarily to enhance the readability and language of their work rather than to substitute core authorial tasks such as drawing conclusions or generating scientific recommendations.

• Accuracy: Because AI can produce content that sounds authoritative but may be biased, incomplete, or factually incorrect, authors are ultimately responsible for the integrity and accuracy of the submitted work.
• Originality: Authors must personally verify that their work is free from plagiarism, including any text or images produced by AI.
• Human Control: All AI-assisted work must be subjected to rigorous human review and editing before submission.

3. Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Transparency is vital for building trust among readers, editors, and peer reviewers.

• Submission Declaration: Authors must openly disclose the use of AI at the time of manuscript submission.
• Placement in Manuscript: For writing assistance, the disclosure should be placed in the Acknowledgment section. If AI tools were used for data collection, analysis, or figure generation, this use must be described in the Methods section.
• Exemptions: Use of basic tools for checking spelling, grammar, or references does not require a formal declaration.

4. AI in Peer Review and Editorial Processes

To safeguard author rights and research confidentiality, the HBRC Journal strictly prohibits reviewers and editors from uploading submitted manuscripts or any part of a manuscript into generative AI platforms. Using AI for evaluation purposes risks breaching proprietary rights and data privacy, as these tools may store input data for future training cycles. Reviewers remain solely accountable for the critical thinking and original assessment required in the peer-review report.