Advances in Healthcare Research (AHR) is committed to transparent, independent, ethical, rigorous, and accountable scientific and scholarly publishing. Its editorial and publication practices are informed by internationally recognized publication-ethics principles, including relevant guidance and Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

These principles apply to authors, reviewers, academic editors, editorial and production personnel, and the journal's publisher, Yayasan Pendidikan Bukhari Dwi Muslim. All participants in scientific publication are expected to uphold intellectual honesty, research integrity, patient and participant protection, confidentiality, appropriate attribution, procedural fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific and scholarly merit, relevance to the current AHR Aims & Scope, eligible manuscript type, originality, theoretical or conceptual quality, methodological or review-methodological rigor, clinical and healthcare relevance where applicable, research integrity, independent peer-review evidence, author responses, and applicable journal policies.

Equal Main Scholarly Scope Principle: All healthcare and health-related fields expressly recognized in the current AHR Aims & Scope constitute its main scholarly scope and have equal standing. These include public health, nursing, midwifery, medicine, pharmacy, health psychology, nutrition, health technology, health analysis, health information systems, medical records, health law, hospital management, and related healthcare disciplines. A manuscript may establish scope relevance through a substantive contribution to any one recognized field without being required to integrate additional healthcare disciplines.

Editorial Independence: Academic editorial decisions must not be influenced by nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, publisher relationships, commercial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, ability to pay an Article Processing Charge, or eligibility for an APC waiver. Financial and administrative arrangements remain separate from independent scientific and scholarly evaluation.

AHR does not tolerate practices that compromise the accuracy, reliability, authenticity, transparency, safety, or integrity of scientific research and publication. Prohibited conduct includes plagiarism, inappropriate appropriation of ideas or text, substantial unattributed reproduction, fabrication or falsification of research data, clinical observations, laboratory results, experimental procedures, analyses, or findings, and misleading manipulation of medical images, clinical photographs, figures, tables, or other research materials.

The journal also prohibits duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed overlapping publication, simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals, ghost or gift authorship, inappropriate guest authorship, undisclosed material conflicts of interest, citation manipulation, coercive citation, peer-review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities, and improper interference with independent academic editorial evaluation.

False or misrepresented ethics approvals, institutional review board authorizations, clinical trial registrations, informed consent, publication consent, patient permissions, animal research approvals, and related compliance records are unacceptable. Fictitious, hallucinated, materially inaccurate, fabricated, or unverifiable scientific citations and references are likewise prohibited, as is misrepresentation or undisclosed substantive misuse of Generative AI or automated research tools.

Authors must not misrepresent the actual study design, sample, intervention, clinical procedures, laboratory investigations, statistical methods, review protocols, evidence synthesis, or scientific findings. Claims concerning patient outcomes, diagnostic accuracy, treatment effectiveness, health risks, pharmaceutical safety, or public health interventions must be supported by appropriate evidence and accurately reflect the research undertaken.

Suspected misconduct may be investigated before or after publication. AHR may request explanations, supporting documentation, underlying research data, ethics approvals, consent records where appropriate, relevant permissions, institutional confirmation, or independent scientific advice. Editorial action takes account of the available evidence, seriousness of the concern, procedural fairness, patient and participant protection, research-integrity requirements, and applicable journal policies.

Authorship must reflect genuine and substantial intellectual participation. To qualify as an author, an individual should make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work or to the acquisition, analysis, interpretation, or synthesis of relevant scientific data or evidence; participate in drafting the manuscript or critically revising important intellectual content; approve the final version intended for publication; and accept accountability for the accuracy, integrity, and scientific reliability of the work.

Individuals who contribute to a research or review project without satisfying authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately. Ghost, guest, and gift authorship are not permitted. Authorship must not be assigned solely because of institutional position, clinical seniority, financial support, administrative involvement, supervision without qualifying intellectual contribution, or another non-scholarly consideration.

Each submission must report author contributions using the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy. The contribution information must accurately describe the work performed by each author and be documented in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form.

A corresponding author must be identified, and a valid ORCID iD is required for the corresponding author. Other authors should provide ORCID identifiers where available. The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating accurate author information, required declarations, communications, final manuscript approval, and confirmation of the submitted work.

Title Page & Author Confirmation: The separate Title Page contains authorship information, institutional affiliations, CRediT contributions, author approvals, accountability statements, originality confirmation, concurrent-submission declarations, funding, conflicts of interest, applicable research-ethics information, and other required publication information. A separate author statement letter is not normally required unless specifically requested by the AHR Editorial Office.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be justified and supported by written agreement from all affected authors. The responsible academic editor may approve or decline such a request after considering the evidence, manuscript stage, scientific accountability, and potential research-integrity implications.

Justified authorship changes after formal publication must be documented transparently through an appropriate linked correction or scholarly-record notice. Author information must not be silently modified in a manner that obscures the published scientific record.

AHR accepts two manuscript types only: Research Paper and Literature Review Paper. The selected manuscript type must accurately represent the article's scientific purpose and actual research or review design. The journal's editorial evaluation is based on the relevant healthcare field, research or review question, scientific contribution, and appropriate methodological requirements.

AHR applies double-anonymous peer review. Authors submit a Blinded Manuscript separately from the Title Page & Author Information Form. Author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors. Author-identifying declarations and other confidential information must be handled through appropriate editorial procedures.

Manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening for relevance to the current Aims & Scope, eligible manuscript type, scientific contribution, originality, compliance with submission requirements, research integrity, methodological suitability, applicable healthcare research ethics, and readiness for independent external review. A manuscript may be declined during initial screening when essential requirements are not met.

The normal scientific-editorial sequence is Submission → Editorial Screening → Independent Peer Review → Revision → Post-Revision Verification → Final Editorial Decision. Manuscripts proceeding to external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate scientific, clinical, healthcare, theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or review-methodological expertise.

Research Paper Review: Reviewers assess the scientific problem, research objectives, theoretical or conceptual foundation, study design, participant or sample selection, clinical or laboratory procedures, data sources, measurement, analytical validity, evidence, research results, interpretation, discussion, ethical compliance, limitations, and substantive contribution. Evaluation must be appropriate to the actual research method and healthcare discipline.

Literature Review Paper Review: Reviewers examine the review question, methodological transparency, information sources, literature-selection procedures where applicable, study-quality or evidence appraisal where appropriate, analytical or synthesis approach, scientific integration, theoretical or conceptual contributions, discussion, limitations, and the strength of conclusions supported by the reviewed literature.

Authors must not claim systematic, PRISMA-based, scoping, bibliometric, meta-analytical, or another specialized review procedure unless the stated procedure was genuinely conducted and sufficiently documented. Bibliometric mapping alone does not replace substantive scientific synthesis or critical scholarly interpretation.

Reviewer recommendations may include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The final scientific-editorial decision remains with the authorized academic editor, subject to Chief Executive Editor oversight and the applicable AHR editorial governance framework.

Where reviewer reports differ substantially, the responsible editor may examine the basis of disagreement, request clarification, or obtain an additional independent review. Editorial decisions are not determined through simple reviewer voting.

Reviewer Confidentiality: Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality, disclose relevant conflicts of interest, provide objective and constructive scientific evaluation, avoid unauthorized direct contact with authors, refrain from attempting to identify anonymized authors, and not delegate review responsibilities without editorial authorization.

Submitted manuscripts must represent original scientific or scholarly work. Ideas, text, clinical data, laboratory findings, medical images, figures, tables, research instruments, methods, analytical approaches, and other materials derived from earlier publications or external sources must be appropriately attributed and cited. Direct quotations must be clearly identified, and paraphrased materials must acknowledge their sources.

Similarity Screening: AHR applies a maximum overall similarity threshold of 15% as an editorial screening requirement under the current standardized policy. Similarity-detection software may be used to identify potential textual overlap and areas requiring closer editorial examination.

A similarity percentage is a screening indicator rather than automatic proof of plagiarism. Editors consider the source, nature, location, extent, quotation status, and context of overlapping material. An apparently acceptable percentage does not excuse plagiarism, and a similarity report does not replace substantive editorial judgment.

Inappropriate text recycling, undisclosed redundant publication, misleading scientific or evidentiary overlap, unauthorized reproduction of medical images or laboratory findings, and other material originality concerns may lead to clarification requests, manuscript revision, rejection, or appropriate post-publication action.

Reference Integrity: Authors must independently verify all in-text citations, reference-list entries, publication metadata, DOI information, and the relationship between cited sources and scientific claims. Fabricated, fictitious, hallucinated, materially inaccurate, or unverifiable references are unacceptable. Manuscripts must follow the journal's required APA Style, 7th edition.

A conflict of interest may arise when financial, professional, institutional, academic, clinical, pharmaceutical, collaborative, competitive, supervisory, or personal relationships could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, independent scientific judgment. Material relationships and interests must be disclosed and appropriately managed throughout manuscript evaluation and publication.

Authors: Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, including relationships with healthcare organizations, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, clinical research sponsors, and other interested parties where applicable. Funding sources and material conflicts must be accurately documented in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form. An explicit declaration of no relevant conflicts is required when no material conflict exists.

Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts promptly and decline or withdraw from an assignment when their independence or ability to provide an objective scientific assessment cannot reasonably be maintained.

Editors: Academic editors must disclose relevant conflicts and recuse themselves from handling a manuscript where a material conflict exists. The manuscript must be reassigned to an appropriately qualified and independent academic editor who can oversee a fair evaluation and decision-making process.

Editor-Authored Manuscripts: An editor must not participate in editorial screening, reviewer selection, peer-review assessment, author-revision evaluation, or scientific-editorial decision-making regarding a manuscript they authored or co-authored. Editorial-team membership provides no preferential treatment, guaranteed acceptance, accelerated scientific evaluation, or APC advantage.

Generative AI systems and automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scientific work. Human authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, research integrity, interpretation, citations, references, analyses, conclusions, patient and participant confidentiality, and final content of submitted manuscripts.

Relevant use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies beyond routine spelling, grammar, formatting, or straightforward language correction must be disclosed in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form. The disclosure should identify the tool or service used and the purpose of its application.

Where AI or automated systems form part of the actual scientific research or review methodology, clinical decision-support evaluation, diagnostic analysis, healthcare intervention, data analysis, evidence-generation procedure, or another scientifically relevant process, sufficient non-identifying methodological information must also be included in the Blinded Manuscript so that reviewers can evaluate the reported procedures appropriately.

Authors must independently verify AI-assisted factual claims, analytical outputs, laboratory or clinical interpretations, quotations, citations, references, methods, and substantive scientific statements. Unverified or fabricated AI-generated outputs must not be presented as authentic scientific evidence or independently established facts.

Images & Scientific Evidence: AI-assisted explanatory graphics may be used where appropriate, transparently disclosed, and independently verified. AI-generated or substantially altered material must not be misrepresented as authentic clinical photographs, diagnostic images, pathology results, laboratory measurements, experimental observations, patient records, or other scientific evidence.

Confidentiality & Scholarly Judgment: Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished scientific data, identifiable patient information, author information, reviewer reports, or editorial correspondence to external AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, consent, copyright, or data protection cannot be assured. Automated tools must not replace independent academic editorial or reviewer judgment.

Research involving human participants, patients, identifiable medical information, sensitive health data, biological materials, clinical interventions, vulnerable populations, experimental animals, or other activities requiring ethical oversight must comply with applicable institutional, disciplinary, professional, legal, and regulatory requirements.

Human-Participant Research: Where required, authors must accurately disclose approval from an appropriate institutional review board, research ethics committee, or equivalent authority. The approving body, approval number, and relevant approval details must be reported truthfully in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form. The study must be conducted according to the approval and applicable ethical requirements.

Informed Consent: Authors must obtain appropriate informed consent where required for participation in clinical, observational, interview-based, experimental, or other human research. Consent must be voluntary, adequately informed, and obtained using procedures appropriate to the study, participant characteristics, applicable law, and ethical approval.

Patient Privacy & Publication Consent: Patient identities, medical records, clinical photographs, diagnostic images, and other potentially identifiable information must be protected. Consent for publication must be obtained where publication may reveal a patient's or participant's identity. De-identification must be appropriate to the nature of the material and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Clinical Research & Trial Registration: Clinical trials and other studies requiring registration must comply with applicable prospective registration and reporting requirements. Authors must provide accurate registration information where required and must not misrepresent registration status, intervention protocols, enrollment, clinical outcomes, or deviations from approved procedures.

Animal Research: Where experimental animals are used, authors must comply with applicable animal research ethics, institutional approval, welfare safeguards, humane procedures, and relevant reporting requirements. Approval and welfare statements must accurately reflect the research actually conducted.

Vulnerable Populations: Research involving children, patients with impaired decision-making capacity, dependent populations, or other vulnerable groups requires particular attention to participant welfare, voluntariness, risk assessment, confidentiality, legally authorized consent, and applicable safeguards.

Double-Anonymous Review: During peer review, the Blinded Manuscript should contain sufficient non-identifying information about ethical procedures, consent, clinical safeguards, participant protection, and research permissions for scientific assessment without unnecessarily disclosing author identities or institutional details. Complete identifying declarations remain in the separate Title Page or confidential editorial records.

Ethics Integrity: Ethics approvals, informed-consent statements, institutional permissions, clinical trial registration details, animal welfare approvals, authorization numbers, and supporting documentation must never be fabricated. Where formal ethical approval is not required under applicable rules, authors should accurately explain the basis for that determination when requested. AHR may require supporting documentation where reasonably necessary.

AHR supports transparent scientific reporting, responsible data management, appropriate methodological documentation, and reproducibility where relevant to the actual healthcare research or literature-review design. Authors are expected to provide sufficient information for scientific evaluation of their research procedures, evidence, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions.

Authors should retain appropriate research records, supporting evidence, datasets, analytical materials, laboratory documentation, clinical protocols, measurement instruments, statistical outputs, and review documentation for an appropriate period and be prepared to provide information reasonably necessary to address questions concerning accuracy, validity, reproducibility, or scientific integrity.

Where legally, ethically, and contractually permissible, authors are encouraged to make suitable supporting data, analytical code, research instruments, non-identifiable study materials, literature-review search strategies, review datasets, and other appropriate scientific resources accessible through a recognized scholarly repository with adequate documentation and citation information.

Legitimate restrictions involving patient privacy, participant confidentiality, clinical records, medical information, ethics approval, institutional authorization, legal obligations, intellectual property, contractual conditions, or third-party rights must be respected and explained where applicable. Transparency and reproducibility requirements do not authorize disclosure of protected health information or identifiable research data without appropriate permission.

Data Availability Statement: Authors must complete the applicable availability declaration in the separate Title Page, identifying whether supporting data or materials are openly accessible, available on reasonable request, included in the article or supplementary files, restricted for legitimate ethical or legal reasons, unavailable for a stated valid reason, or not applicable. Statements must accurately reflect the actual availability of the underlying research materials.

Authors must accurately disclose relevant funding sources, research sponsors, grant organizations, financial support, clinical research support, pharmaceutical or medical-device-related funding, and other forms of institutional assistance in the separate Title Page & Author Information Form, where applicable. Funding declarations must accurately reflect the support received and must not include fabricated sponsors, grant numbers, or institutional endorsements.

Individuals, hospitals, health centers, laboratories, research institutions, professional organizations, technical contributors, or other parties that provided assistance but do not satisfy the journal's authorship criteria may be acknowledged appropriately. Acknowledgements must accurately represent the nature of the contribution and comply with applicable confidentiality, patient privacy, institutional authorization, and consent requirements.

Funding or acknowledgement information that may reveal author identities should not appear in the Blinded Manuscript during double-anonymous peer review. Applicable funding and acknowledgement declarations may be incorporated into the final publication record through authorized post-acceptance editorial and production procedures.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that third-party materials used in their submissions comply with applicable copyright, licensing, intellectual-property, data-access, privacy, and permission requirements. Such materials may include clinical assessment instruments, psychometric scales, questionnaires, medical photographs, diagnostic images, laboratory images, figures, datasets, research protocols, software outputs, copyrighted excerpts, and other protected or licensed resources.

Where permission, attribution, acknowledgement, publication consent, or disclosure of licensing terms is required, authors must provide accurate information in the separate Title Page or other applicable publication documentation. Necessary authorization must be obtained before material is reproduced, adapted, disclosed, or included in the published work.

Authors must be prepared to provide reasonable supporting evidence of relevant permissions, licenses, and publication consent when requested by the AHR Editorial Office. The journal's Open Access license does not remove third-party rights attached to material excluded from that license.

AHR accepts legitimate complaints and appeals concerning editorial decisions, peer-review procedures, conflicts of interest, publication ethics, patient or participant confidentiality, administrative conduct, scientific integrity, or published scholarly content. The journal seeks to assess concerns fairly, objectively, and with appropriate consideration of confidentiality and independent academic editorial responsibility.

An editorial appeal should identify the manuscript, the disputed decision, and the specific factual, procedural, scientific, ethical, or evidentiary grounds for reconsideration. A significant factual misunderstanding, procedural error, unmanaged conflict of interest, or overlooked material evidence may provide grounds for further editorial examination.

Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not automatically justify reversal of an editorial decision. Appeals are considered in light of the complete scientific and procedural record, applicable journal policies, relevant evidence, and the independence of the responsible academic editor.

Ethics, Complaints & Appeals Contact: The Managing Editor coordinates the receipt and administrative handling of relevant correspondence through advancesresearch@gmail.com. Matters requiring independent scientific-editorial judgment must be referred to the appropriately authorized academic editor.

AHR considers credible scientific or publication-misconduct allegations through an appropriate, documented, proportionate, confidential, and procedurally fair editorial process. The receipt of an allegation does not automatically establish that misconduct has occurred.

Receipt & Preliminary Assessment: The Editorial Office receives and records an allegation and the available supporting information. A preliminary assessment determines whether the matter falls within the journal's responsibility and whether additional examination is warranted.

Conflict-of-Interest Management: Relevant conflicts of interest must be identified and managed before substantive evaluation. Individuals with material conflicts should not independently direct an investigation or determine its outcome.

Evidence Collection & Author Clarification: Relevant authors or other involved parties may be asked to provide explanations, original scientific documentation, underlying research data, clinical or laboratory records where lawfully accessible, relevant permissions, ethics approval documentation, trial registration information, or other material evidence needed for a fair assessment of the concern.

Independent Consultation: Where appropriate, the journal may consult independent healthcare research experts, affiliated institutions, scientific-integrity offices, research ethics committees, funders, publishers, other journals, or relevant external bodies. Such consultation should respect confidentiality, patient and participant privacy, applicable law, and appropriate procedural safeguards.

Editorial Assessment & Response: The available evidence is evaluated fairly and proportionately. Depending on the findings and publication stage, the response may include clarification, manuscript revision, rejection, correction, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another appropriate scientific-record measure.

Procedural Fairness: AHR seeks to protect scientific integrity, patient safety, and public confidence in healthcare research while respecting confidentiality, evidence, the rights of affected parties, and the distinction between an allegation and a substantiated finding. Editorial responses should be appropriately documented and consistent with the seriousness of the issue.

AHR seeks to maintain the accuracy, transparency, permanence, and traceability of formally published Versions of Record. Appropriate post-publication action may be necessary when material errors, ethical concerns, patient safety implications, or scientific-integrity issues affect the reliability of the published scholarly record.

Correction: A correction may be issued when an otherwise reliable article contains an error, omission, or material inaccuracy that requires clarification but does not invalidate its principal scientific findings. The correction should accurately identify the affected publication information and remain traceable to the original article.

Expression of Concern: An Expression of Concern may be issued where serious questions arise concerning a publication, but the available evidence remains inconclusive or an investigation is ongoing. The notice should accurately communicate the unresolved nature of the concern without presenting an unconfirmed allegation as a completed finding.

Retraction: Retraction may be appropriate when published scientific findings are seriously unreliable, serious plagiarism or misconduct is established, clinical or laboratory data are fabricated or falsified, research was conducted unethically, substantial undisclosed duplicate publication occurred, or another major integrity problem materially compromises the scholarly record.

Version-of-Record Integrity: Substantive post-publication changes must not be made through undocumented replacement or silent alteration. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, retractions, and other appropriate editorial notices should be transparently linked to the relevant original article and bibliographic record. The scholarly archive should retain appropriate evidence of publication history, including retracted or corrected records.

Manuscript Withdrawal: Authors may formally request withdrawal before publication while a manuscript remains under consideration. The request must be submitted to the AHR Editorial Office. Authors should not submit the same manuscript elsewhere until the journal confirms that the submission is no longer under consideration. AHR does not impose a separate withdrawal fee.

Post-publication actions should be considered in accordance with applicable scientific-integrity evidence, procedural fairness, scholarly-record requirements, and relevant guidance, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

AHR provides immediate Open Access without an embargo. Readers may access and download published scientific articles without subscription fees or mandatory registration, supporting broad scholarly dissemination, accessibility of healthcare research findings, and the responsible reuse of published knowledge.

Authors retain copyright in their published scientific and scholarly work. Publication in AHR does not transfer copyright ownership to the journal or its publisher. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication and the permissions necessary to publish, distribute, identify, and preserve the authoritative published work.

Published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license permits users to copy, redistribute, adapt, transform, and build upon licensed content, including for commercial purposes, provided appropriate attribution is given, the applicable license is identified, and modifications are indicated where required.

Submitted Manuscript: Authors may deposit or share a submitted manuscript through an appropriate scholarly repository, provided that its pre-publication status is accurately identified and applicable confidentiality, patient privacy, copyright, and third-party requirements are respected.

Accepted Manuscript: Authors may deposit an accepted manuscript after final editorial acceptance. The deposited file must be identified as the accepted version and must not be misrepresented as the final published Version of Record.

Published Version of Record: Following formal publication, authors may deposit and share the authoritative published article under its CC BY 4.0 license. Appropriate attribution, the complete article citation, the DOI or official AHR article URL, and applicable license information should accompany the deposited publication.

Self-Archiving Without Embargo: AHR permits self-archiving of the submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript, and published Version of Record without imposing a journal-specific embargo. Authors remain responsible for applicable copyright, confidentiality, patient-data protection, third-party materials, institutional, and repository requirements.

Where an earlier manuscript version remains accessible online after publication, authors are encouraged to update its repository record with a link to the authoritative Version of Record. Third-party materials that are not included within the article's CC BY 4.0 license remain subject to their own rights and permissions.

AHR may permit limited appropriate advertising or receive income from legitimate journal-related activities. Advertising, sponsorship, publisher support, APC revenue, and other financial arrangements must remain administratively separate from independent academic editorial evaluation and scientific-editorial decision-making.

Financial or commercial relationships must not determine manuscript selection, reviewer assignment, reviewer recommendations, peer-review timing or outcomes, manuscript acceptance or rejection, interpretation of scientific findings, or the presentation and publication of healthcare research.

Advertising Transparency: Advertisements, where present, must be distinguishable from editorial and scientific content. The appearance of advertising does not imply that AHR endorses a particular healthcare product, pharmaceutical preparation, medical device, clinical service, commercial organization, conference, institution, or other advertised activity.

AHR supports responsible, evidence-based, professional, constructive, and respectful scientific discussion of research published in the journal. Scientific debate, methodological scrutiny, clinical interpretation, and good-faith post-publication correspondence are important components of accountable healthcare research communication.

Readers, researchers, authors, reviewers, healthcare professionals, and other interested parties may notify the AHR Editorial Office of potential scientific errors, clinical concerns, methodological limitations, ethical issues, missing evidence, inaccurate publication metadata, patient confidentiality problems, or other matters that may require appropriate editorial attention.

Where appropriate, AHR may seek clarification from authors, consult independent scientific or clinical experts, examine supporting information, or undertake other proportionate editorial steps. Outcomes may include an author response, formal correction, editorial notice, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another suitable measure to preserve the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scientific publication record.

AHR does not require Article Processing Charge payment during submission, initial editorial screening, independent peer review, author revision, post-revision verification, or another pre-acceptance evaluation stage. APC or waiver administration begins only after the manuscript has received a final scientific-editorial acceptance decision.

Standard APC — IDR 500,000: For an accepted manuscript where at least one author is institutionally affiliated with an institution in Indonesia, the current standard AHR Article Processing Charge is IDR 500,000 per accepted manuscript.

Full APC Waiver — IDR 0: Where all authors are institutionally affiliated exclusively with institutions outside Indonesia, the accepted manuscript receives a full APC waiver. Eligibility is evaluated according to the applicable institutional-affiliation information rather than nationality, citizenship, birthplace, residence, or other personal characteristics.

Detailed APC and waiver verification, official invoicing, payment arrangements, refunds, and applicable administrative procedures are governed by the official AHR APC Policy. Previously issued official invoices and agreed payment terms are not changed retroactively merely because current charges or administrative arrangements differ from earlier legitimate agreements.

Following final scientific-editorial acceptance, the normal publication-preparation sequence is Final Editorial Acceptance → APC or Waiver Verification → Post-Acceptance Administration → Copyediting → Proofreading & Production → Metadata Verification → Version of Record → Online Publication. Applicable APC or waiver verification is conducted within the authorized post-acceptance administrative process.

Post-acceptance processing prepares scientifically accepted manuscripts for accurate, ethical, and technically reliable publication. It does not replace or restart ordinary independent peer review. Material scientific contradictions, serious research-integrity concerns, legal or ethical problems, authorship issues, significant metadata inconsistencies, or genuine publication blockers must be referred to the responsible academic editor for appropriate resolution.

Financial Independence: APC payment, ability to pay, invoice status, waiver eligibility, or approval of a full waiver must not influence editorial screening, reviewer selection, scientific evaluation, revision recommendations, acceptance, rejection, or other independent scientific-editorial decisions. Payment or waiver arrangements do not constitute a guarantee of publication.

AHR applies its current editorial and publication policies prospectively, taking account of relevant policy-specific effective dates, the nature of revisions, legitimate administrative arrangements, established author and journal commitments, and the integrity of the published scientific record.

Aims & Scope Policy: All healthcare and health-related fields explicitly recognized in the current AHR Aims & Scope constitute the journal's main scholarly scope and have equal standing for editorial assessment. A substantive contribution may establish scope relevance through any one recognized field. Updated scope requirements apply prospectively and do not retrospectively redefine valid historical manuscript classifications or editorial decisions.

Publication Frequency: AHR publishes one volume per year with exactly two regular numbered issues. Its established publication periods are Issue No. 1: September–February and Issue No. 2: March–August. The September–February period spans two calendar years. Original issue assignments and publication records remain authoritative for previously published articles.

Continuous Publication: AHR's announced continuous-publication model applies prospectively from 1 September 2026 within the applicable active numbered issue. This model permits publication-ready articles to be released individually after completion of the required scientific-editorial, administrative, copyediting, proofreading, production, and metadata-verification processes. Continuous publication does not increase the number of regular issues or authorize alteration of legitimate historical records.

Policy-Specific Application: The effective date of one publication policy must not automatically be interpreted as the effective date of every requirement on this page. Other standardized editorial, manuscript, similarity-screening, APC, ethics, or administrative revisions should be applied according to their actual adopted requirements, valid existing editorial commitments, and applicable arrangements.

Historical Scholarly Record: Previously published annual volumes, numbered issues, articles, actual publication dates, author information, DOI records, legitimate editorial decisions, valid financial-administration arrangements, and other established bibliographic information remain part of AHR's permanent scholarly record. Later policy revisions do not automatically invalidate or retrospectively rewrite historical editorial or publication records.

Publication Ethics & Administrative Support: Haeril Amir, Managing Editor, coordinates applicable administrative communication concerning publication ethics, editorial workflows, complaints, appeals, reviewer correspondence, and journal procedures. Correspondence may be directed to advancesresearch@gmail.com.

Principal Academic Editorial Contact: Nurfardiansyah Burhanuddin, Chief Executive Editor, provides principal academic editorial leadership and oversight of scientific evaluation, editorial governance, research-integrity decisions, and other matters requiring independent academic editorial authority. Correspondence may be directed to editor@advancesinresearch.id.

AHR maintains transparent, independent, ethical, and accountable editorial and publication practices to protect research participants, patients, authors, reviewers, editors, readers, healthcare institutions, and the integrity, reliability, accessibility, and permanence of the scientific and scholarly record.

The journal's publication-ethics framework emphasizes scientific merit, fair and independent peer review, responsible authorship, accurate reporting, verifiable evidence, ethical healthcare research, informed consent, protection of confidential health information, appropriate disclosure, transparent handling of scientific concerns, editorial independence from financial interests, and responsible correction of the published scholarly record.