Editorial Process

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances (DHTA) follows a structured, transparent, confidential, and independent editorial process designed to support scholarly quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, editorial independence, and integrity throughout manuscript evaluation and publication.

Every submitted manuscript is assessed according to its relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, scholarly contribution, methodological appropriateness, reporting quality, ethical acceptability, and relevance to digital health, telemonitoring, remote healthcare, health informatics, connected medical technologies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly considerations. Manuscript evaluation is conducted fairly and without inappropriate personal, institutional, financial, commercial, or other non-scholarly influence.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's designated online submission system in accordance with the current Author Guidelines and applicable journal policies.

Before submission, authors should ensure that:

  • The manuscript falls within the journal's aims and scope.

  • The work is original and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.

  • All listed authors have approved the submitted manuscript.

  • Authorship accurately reflects scholarly contributions.

  • Required declarations have been provided.

  • Ethical approval and informed-consent information are reported where applicable.

  • Conflicts of interest and funding sources are disclosed.

  • Data availability information is provided where relevant.

  • Third-party copyrighted material is properly acknowledged and authorized where required.

  • Relevant use of artificial intelligence or AI-assisted tools is disclosed in accordance with journal policy.

Submission of a manuscript does not guarantee external peer review or publication.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

Following submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial administrative and technical review.

This stage may include verification of:

  • Manuscript completeness.

  • Author names and affiliations.

  • Corresponding-author information.

  • Article type.

  • Title, abstract, and keywords.

  • Required declarations.

  • Tables, figures, and supplementary files.

  • Reference completeness.

  • Ethics statements.

  • Funding and conflict-of-interest statements.

  • Data Availability Statement, where applicable.

  • Compliance with submission requirements.

Incomplete manuscripts or submissions that materially fail to comply with journal requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts passing administrative screening are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately assigned editor.

The initial editorial assessment considers whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the journal's aims and scope.

  • Addresses a relevant scholarly or clinical problem.

  • Demonstrates sufficient originality or contribution.

  • Uses an appropriate research design or analytical approach.

  • Is reported with adequate clarity.

  • Meets minimum scholarly standards.

  • Complies with relevant ethical requirements.

  • Is suitable for independent external peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review where it is outside the journal's scope, lacks sufficient scholarly contribution, contains fundamental methodological deficiencies, presents serious ethical concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for further consideration.

4. Scope Assessment for Digital Health Research

Manuscripts submitted to DHTA should demonstrate a substantive connection to digital health, healthcare delivery, clinical research, public health, health systems, or related healthcare technologies.

Relevant areas may include:

  • Remote patient monitoring.

  • Telemedicine and virtual care.

  • Wearable health technologies.

  • Mobile health.

  • Digital therapeutics.

  • Health informatics.

  • Digital biomarkers.

  • Artificial intelligence in healthcare.

  • Connected medical devices.

  • Clinical decision-support systems.

  • Digital-health data analytics.

  • Patient-engagement technologies.

  • Healthcare interoperability.

  • Privacy and cybersecurity.

  • Digital-health regulation.

  • Ethical and societal implications of healthcare technologies.

Manuscripts focused primarily on general technology without a meaningful healthcare or health-system application may be considered outside the journal's scope.

5. Originality and Similarity Assessment

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using similarity-detection software as part of the editorial assessment process.

A numerical similarity score alone is not considered proof of plagiarism.

Editors assess the nature and context of identified overlap, including:

  • Source of overlapping material.

  • Amount and location of overlap.

  • Whether appropriate citation is provided.

  • Whether standard methodological language is involved.

  • Whether previously published material is being presented as new.

  • Whether duplicate or redundant publication may have occurred.

Where concerns arise, authors may be asked to provide clarification, revision, or supporting information.

Confirmed or suspected plagiarism is handled in accordance with the journal's Plagiarism Policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

6. Research Integrity Screening

The journal may assess manuscripts for potential concerns involving:

  • Fabrication.

  • Falsification.

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate submission.

  • Duplicate or redundant publication.

  • Inappropriate authorship.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Data manipulation.

  • Image manipulation.

  • Citation manipulation.

  • Misleading statistical reporting.

  • Peer-review manipulation.

  • Ethical-approval concerns.

  • Other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Where credible concerns are identified, editorial processing may be suspended while the matter is investigated under the journal's publication-ethics procedures.

7. Ethical Assessment of Human-Related Research

Research involving human participants, patients, personal health information, clinical records, surveys, interviews, wearable-device information, biometric data, or other ethically regulated material must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, and legal requirements.

Where applicable, manuscripts should report:

  • Name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board.

  • Approval or reference number, where available.

  • Informed consent.

  • Consent for publication where relevant.

  • Protection of participant privacy.

  • Confidentiality measures.

  • Appropriate safeguards for vulnerable populations.

Where ethical approval was not required, authors may be asked to explain the basis for the exemption.

Editors may request supporting ethical documentation where necessary.

8. Digital Health Data and Privacy Assessment

Digital-health research may involve sensitive clinical, physiological, behavioral, biometric, or device-generated data.

Where relevant, editorial assessment may consider:

  • Data provenance.

  • Privacy and confidentiality.

  • De-identification.

  • Cybersecurity.

  • Data access and storage.

  • Data sharing.

  • Consent for secondary data use.

  • Re-identification risks.

  • Applicable data-governance requirements.

Personally identifiable patient or participant information should not be published unless its inclusion is justified and appropriate consent or authorization has been obtained.

9. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Systems

For research involving artificial intelligence, machine learning, predictive systems, automated clinical decision-making, or generative AI, authors should provide appropriate methodological and ethical transparency.

Where relevant, manuscripts should describe:

  • Training, validation, and testing data.

  • Model-development procedures.

  • Performance metrics.

  • Validation methods.

  • Known limitations.

  • Potential bias.

  • Generalizability.

  • Explainability.

  • Human oversight.

  • Safety considerations.

  • Clinically relevant implications.

Claims regarding safety, fairness, accuracy, effectiveness, or clinical usefulness should be supported by appropriate evidence.

AI tools must not be listed as authors.

Relevant use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools should be disclosed in accordance with the journal's AI Usage Policy.

10. Assignment to a Handling Editor

Manuscripts considered suitable for further assessment are assigned to a handling editor with appropriate subject, methodological, clinical, or interdisciplinary expertise.

The handling editor may be responsible for:

  • Coordinating manuscript assessment.

  • Selecting appropriate reviewers.

  • Evaluating reviewer reports.

  • Communicating revision requirements.

  • Assessing revised manuscripts.

  • Making an editorial recommendation.

An editor must not handle a manuscript where a competing interest could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Where a conflict exists, the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor.

11. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of relevant subject, methodological, clinical, technological, or interdisciplinary expertise.

Reviewer selection may consider:

  • Relevant scholarly or professional expertise.

  • Methodological competence.

  • Independence from the authors.

  • Absence of significant competing interests.

  • Familiarity with the research area.

  • Ability to provide a constructive and timely assessment.

Where authors are permitted to suggest reviewers, those individuals are not automatically invited.

The journal independently evaluates the expertise, identity, affiliation, independence, and competing interests of any author-suggested reviewer.

The journal retains full responsibility for reviewer selection.

12. External Peer Review

DHTA follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer-review process.

Research manuscripts are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers, where this reflects the journal's actual editorial practice.

Reviewers may assess:

  • Originality.

  • Significance of the research question.

  • Methodological rigor.

  • Statistical or analytical procedures.

  • Validity of findings.

  • Quality of interpretation.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Relevant scholarly literature.

  • Clarity and completeness of reporting.

  • Limitations.

  • Clinical or practical significance.

  • Contribution to digital-health or telemonitoring scholarship.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not independently determine acceptance or rejection.

The full review procedure is described in the journal's Peer Review Policy.

13. Confidentiality During Review

Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential scholarly documents.

Editors, reviewers, and journal staff must not disclose confidential manuscript information to unauthorized individuals.

Information obtained during peer review must not be used for:

  • Personal research advantage.

  • Commercial benefit.

  • Competitive advantage.

  • Unauthorized publication or disclosure.

Disclosure may occur only where legitimately required for an ethical investigation, legal obligation, or authorized editorial purpose.

14. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers should disclose interests or relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Financial relationships.

  • Recent collaborations.

  • Employment at the same institution.

  • Supervisory or mentoring relationships.

  • Personal relationships.

  • Direct academic competition.

  • Commercial interests.

  • Intellectual-property interests.

A reviewer with a significant competing interest should decline the invitation.

15. Editorial Decisions

After considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, ethical considerations, author responses, and any other relevant information, the handling editor assesses the manuscript.

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

  • Additional Review, where necessary

Reviewer recommendations do not determine the outcome by simple majority vote.

The handling editor makes or recommends an editorial decision, while the Editor-in-Chief or another formally authorized senior editor retains responsibility for the final publication decision, according to the journal's governance structure.

16. Revision by Authors

Where revision is requested, authors should normally submit:

  • A revised manuscript.

  • A structured point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

  • A clear description of substantive changes.

  • A reasoned explanation where a recommendation has not been followed.

Authors may respectfully disagree with reviewer comments where a clear scholarly justification is provided.

A revision request does not constitute acceptance and does not guarantee publication.

17. Reassessment of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • Assessed by the handling editor.

  • Returned to the original reviewers.

  • Sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

Minor revisions may be assessed editorially where appropriate.

Major revisions involving substantial methodological, analytical, clinical, or interpretive changes may undergo additional external peer review.

18. Handling Reviewer Disagreements

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may:

  • Assess the reasoning provided in each report.

  • Request reviewer clarification.

  • Invite an additional independent reviewer.

  • Seek specialist methodological or statistical advice.

  • Conduct further editorial assessment.

The final decision is based on the totality of scholarly, methodological, and ethical evidence.

19. Additional Expert Review

Additional expertise may be sought for manuscripts involving specialized areas such as:

  • Clinical medicine.

  • Biostatistics.

  • Artificial intelligence.

  • Cybersecurity.

  • Biomedical engineering.

  • Health economics.

  • Data protection.

  • Medical-device regulation.

  • Research ethics.

  • Qualitative research.

  • Complex computational methods.

Additional assessment is intended to improve the reliability of editorial decision-making.

20. Special Issues and Guest-Edited Content

Manuscripts submitted to special issues, themed collections, or guest-edited sections are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, and independent peer-review standards as regular submissions.

Guest editors must disclose competing interests.

A guest editor must not handle a manuscript where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Such manuscripts should be reassigned to an independent editor.

The Editor-in-Chief or another authorized senior editor retains oversight of special issues and responsibility for maintaining editorial independence and publication integrity.

21. Editors and Editorial Board Members as Authors

Manuscripts submitted by DHTA editors, editorial board members, or closely associated individuals must not receive preferential treatment.

Such manuscripts should be handled by an independent editor without a relevant competing interest.

The submitting editor or board member must not:

  • Select reviewers for their own manuscript.

  • Participate in peer-review decisions.

  • Participate in the final publication decision.

22. Final Editorial Evaluation

Before acceptance, the responsible editor may verify:

  • Whether substantive reviewer concerns have been addressed.

  • Methodological clarity.

  • Ethical compliance.

  • Data-related declarations.

  • Funding information.

  • Conflict-of-interest statements.

  • Authorship information.

  • Reference and citation accuracy.

  • Tables and figures.

  • Supplementary materials.

  • Copyright and licensing information.

  • Overall scholarly suitability.

Acceptance should be granted only when the manuscript meets the journal's applicable scholarly, ethical, and editorial requirements.

23. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and publication integrity.

Editorial decisions should not be improperly influenced by:

  • Author nationality.

  • Institutional prestige.

  • Professional seniority.

  • Financial relationships.

  • Commercial interests.

  • Political pressure.

  • Publisher business considerations.

  • Other irrelevant non-scholarly factors.

The publisher may provide administrative and technical support but must not improperly influence decisions regarding acceptance or rejection.

24. Formal Acceptance

Once the manuscript satisfies the applicable editorial requirements, formal acceptance may be issued by the authorized editor.

Acceptance confirms completion of the scholarly editorial process but does not mean that production and publication procedures have been completed.

Substantive changes introduced after acceptance may require renewed editorial assessment.

25. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to production.

This stage may include:

  • Language and consistency review.

  • Copyediting.

  • Reference checking.

  • Metadata verification.

  • Formatting.

  • Table and figure preparation.

  • Layout.

  • Verification of declarations.

  • Verification of CC BY 4.0 licensing information.

  • Preparation of final publication files.

Copyediting should improve clarity and consistency without changing the substantive scholarly meaning of the accepted manuscript.

26. Author Proof Review

Where proofs are supplied, the corresponding author should review:

  • Author names.

  • Affiliations.

  • Article title.

  • Abstract and keywords.

  • Tables.

  • Figures.

  • Equations.

  • References.

  • Acknowledgments.

  • Funding information.

  • Conflict-of-interest statements.

  • Copyright and licensing information.

  • Other publication metadata.

Proof review primarily addresses production errors.

Material changes to data, findings, conclusions, or authorship should not normally be introduced after acceptance without editorial approval.

27. Online Publication

After editorial and production requirements have been completed, the article is published online as part of the journal's scholarly record.

Published articles are made available according to the journal's:

  • Open Access Policy

  • Copyright and Licensing Policy

  • Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), where applicable.

Publication metadata should be maintained accurately to support identification, citation, discovery, indexing, and preservation.

28. Publication Frequency and Scheduling

DHTA publishes according to the frequency stated in its official Publication Frequency Policy.

Accepted manuscripts are scheduled according to the journal's actual editorial and production workflow.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not guarantee publication in a specific issue or on a specific date unless formally confirmed by the journal.

The journal seeks to maintain a consistent and sustainable publication schedule and to avoid unnecessary delays or interruptions.

Any change to the journal's publication frequency should be communicated transparently and applied consistently across the journal website and relevant publication records.

29. Post-Publication Responsibility

Editorial responsibility continues after publication.

Where concerns arise involving:

  • Factual errors.

  • Data integrity.

  • Authorship.

  • Conflicts of interest.

  • Research ethics.

  • Methodological reliability.

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate publication.

  • Publication misconduct.

  • Other matters affecting the reliability of the scholarly record.

the journal may conduct an appropriate post-publication assessment.

Depending on the circumstances, DHTA may publish:

  • A correction.

  • Clarification.

  • Expression of Concern.

  • Retraction.

  • Other appropriate editorial notice.

Published articles should not ordinarily be silently removed or altered to resolve integrity concerns.

30. Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other stakeholders may submit reasoned complaints or appeals regarding editorial procedures or decisions.

An appeal should normally:

  • Identify the manuscript or decision concerned.

  • Explain the basis for reconsideration.

  • Provide relevant evidence.

  • Focus on substantive scholarly, factual, ethical, or procedural issues.

Where practicable, significant appeals should be assessed by an individual who was not directly responsible for the original disputed decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision.

Detailed procedures are provided in the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

31. Editorial Records

DHTA may retain appropriate records relating to:

  • Manuscript processing.

  • Peer review.

  • Editorial decisions.

  • Author correspondence.

  • Ethical investigations.

  • Corrections and post-publication actions.

Such records should be maintained securely and used only for legitimate editorial, ethical, administrative, quality-control, and publication-management purposes.

Confidential records must be protected from unauthorized access.

32. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers remain responsible for maintaining manuscript confidentiality.

Confidential manuscript material should not be uploaded into external generative AI systems where this could compromise:

  • Confidentiality.

  • Intellectual property.

  • Participant privacy.

  • Data protection.

  • Editorial independence.

AI-assisted tools must not replace independent reviewer or editorial judgment.

Any permitted use should comply with the journal's AI Usage Policy.

33. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  • Submitting accurate and original work.

  • Complying with research and publication ethics requirements.

  • Providing accurate authorship information.

  • Disclosing competing interests.

  • Reporting funding accurately.

  • Responding appropriately to editorial queries.

  • Addressing reviewer comments responsibly.

  • Correcting significant errors.

  • Cooperating with legitimate post-publication investigations.

Authors remain accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their published work.

34. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective scholarly assessments.

  • Maintain confidentiality.

  • Disclose competing interests.

  • Avoid discriminatory or personal comments.

  • Identify significant methodological, ethical, or integrity concerns.

  • Avoid misuse of unpublished information.

  • Avoid inappropriate citation requests.

  • Provide sufficiently reasoned recommendations.

Reviewers have an advisory role and do not independently determine the final editorial decision.

35. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for maintaining:

  • Fairness.

  • Confidentiality.

  • Editorial independence.

  • Appropriate peer review.

  • Conflict-of-interest management.

  • Research-integrity oversight.

  • Proportionate editorial decision-making.

  • Protection of the scholarly record.

Editors should distinguish legitimate scholarly disagreement from ethical misconduct and should seek additional expertise where necessary.

Commitment to Responsible Editorial Practice

Digital Health & Telemonitoring Advances (DHTA) is committed to an editorial process that supports scientific quality, ethical research, transparent reporting, independent peer review, responsible editorial decision-making, and preservation of the scholarly record.

Particular attention is given to issues relevant to digital-health scholarship, including patient safety, health-data privacy, clinical relevance, artificial intelligence, algorithmic bias, cybersecurity, human oversight, technological limitations, and responsible implementation.

Through structured editorial assessment, independent peer review, transparent revision procedures, accurate publication records, and appropriate post-publication oversight, DHTA seeks to contribute to a credible and reliable scholarly record in digital health and telemonitoring.