Information for Authors

  • Criterion for Publication
  • THMT Submission/Article Types
  • Editorial Review Time
  • Proofs and Invoices
  • Author Access to Data
  • Removing Authors
  • Language Editing
  • Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities 
  • Embargo Policy 
  • Repository Policy, Self-archiving and Digital preservation
  • Post publication discussions and corrections
  • Transparent Peer Review (TPR) 
  • Copyright and Creative Commons License
  • Best Practices to avoid manuscript rejections
  • Journal Pillars

 

Criteria for Publication

Your manuscript submission should represent the following:

  1. Originality and practicality in the global advancement of blockchain technology and platform approaches in healthcare
  2. Importance to research, practice, innovation, or changes in the field
  3. Relevance to the THMT audience and those with an interest in blockchain technology and platform approaches in healthcare
  4. Rigorous methodology, with conclusions justified by the evidence presented
  5. Adherence to the highest ethical standards

For complete instructions to prepare your submissions, Go To MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION.

THMT Submission/Article Types

THMT accepts original research that has not appeared in the public domain (meaning has not been previously published in print or online). THMT will accept manuscripts from pre-print servers. Manuscripts of interest will present original research (see descriptions below), establish advances, or failures/negative experiments utilizing evidence-based outcomes in the following categories:

  • Original Research
  • Proof of Concept/Pilots/Methodologies
  • Use Case
  • Narrative/Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis
  • *Clinical Case Studies
  • *Technical Briefs & Short Reports
  • *Editorial or Discussion

*2000 word limit including references. Upload manuscripts on the portal here.

Identify Case Reports as such in the title.

Original Research: these are detailed studies and include hypothesis, background study, methods, results, interpretation of findings, and a discussion of possible implications. Randomized, controlled experiments, case studies, cohort studies, pilot studies, and meta-analysis are also examples of original research that THMT accepts for this category. As applicable, economic implications should also be explored. Original research should include a section on “Methods,” which details the criteria for selection and of the data presented. Unless specified, there are no word counts or limitations. 

Examples published in THMT:

Proof of Concept: demonstrate feasibility to verify real world application, potential value and learnings. Examples such as interoperability, system integration and deployment may be topics. Use cases may also be submitted under this category. If possible, THMT asks the author(s) to include examination of the financial impact and/or scaled use of the product or service may have on the marketplace.

An example published in THMT:

Use Cases/Pilots/Methodologies: this is a description of the way in which an end-user will engage with a system and describes what that system does and defines the features to be implemented and potentially, the resolution of any errors that may be encountered. Use cases are particularly valuable to the market to help explain system behaviors and process and may also provide a benchmark reporting experiential cost and complexities and can include devices or business processes, production and deployments.

Examples published in THMT:

Review Article: review articles give an overview of existing literature, often-identifying specific problems or issues and analyzing substantive information from available published work on the topic with a balanced perspective. Note: meta-analyses should be submitted as original research.  In addition, authors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Collection Development Guidelines, Manuscripts should be well referenced.

Examples published in THMT:

Technical Briefs and Reports: technical briefs may capture design, challenges, new technologies and applications, standards, performance analysis and optimization to communicate information obtained through a process of technical or experimental work. Actual implementation experience should be included where possible along with reports of metrics to measure components is highly recommended. 

Editorial or Discussion: these may be reviews of fundamental concepts or prevalent ideas in the field presenting a review of a single concept or a few related concepts, and may represent an expert opinion or point of view, alert(s) of potential problem(s), observation(s), comment(s), controversies, opinion(s) presenting a single concept or several related concepts. An editorial is typically by one author and a discussion usually includes at least two authors or more.

Examples published in THMT:

Market Research Reports: these articles can identify market trends, consumer behavior, demographics, economic shifts, customer habits, competitive analysis etc.

Examples published in THMT:

Special Reports: encompass manuscripts that are neither reviews nor original reports of primary research. They may include consensus statements, guidelines, statements from a reputable task force or work group, or recommendations. Submissions must be original, based upon a high level of evidence, be relevant and not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions from groups must explicitly state all contributing members in developing the work including affiliations. Special Reports should not exceed 15,000 words of body text and 250 words for the abstract. A limit of 100 references is recommended. Submitting supplemental files, and use of tables and figures to summarize critical points is strongly encouraged.

Editorial Review Time

Papers submitted are subject to rigorous peer review to ensure that the research published is 'good science.' Peer review, and author revisions, are often the lengthiest part of the manuscript review process.

Journals usually ask reviewers to complete their reviews within 3-4 weeks. However, few journals have a mechanism to enforce the deadline, which is why it can be hard to predict how long the peer review process will take. Highly technical papers can take longer to review.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. High-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

All manuscripts and associated material submitted to THMT remain confidential while under review and reviewers are informed of this in their agreements, at on boarding, and throughout the review process.

Proofs and Invoices

Corresponding authors of accepted submissions are sent galley proofs with final production queries for stylistic changes and minor edits. Corrections should be relayed to the Managing Editor as soon as possible to facilitate publication. Once approved, if changes are required or requested, a $350.00 charge will be invoiced for revisions.

The corresponding author will receive an invoice for the APC when the manuscript is accepted. Manuscripts are published only after receipt of payment. The production phase typically takes 7-14 days to resolve queries. We ask authors to facilitate turn-around to finalize proofs.

Author Access to Data 

All authors should be permitted to examine the data underlying the study’s findings. For research conducted in collaboration between academic and non-academic partners, at least one author affiliated with an academic institution must have direct access to the primary dataset and be actively involved in the data analysis. For industry- or sponsor-funded studies, access to the data supporting the results must be explicitly guaranteed within the research agreement. Journal editors may request clarification regarding which authors had data access and took part in the analytical process.

​Removing Authors

  1. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, the managing editor ​must receive an explanation requesting the change from all listed authors, including the author to be removed or added, in writing and signed by all.
  2. ​If authors withdraw ​a​ submitted manuscripts before publication​, all co​-authors ​must agree with the decision to withdraw a manuscript​ and submit a signed letter ​to ​t​he managing ​edi​tor.
  3. Corrections and retractions after ​publication​ may be warranted for errors of fact​. Mat​ters of debate ​i​n evolving science and methods are not errors. Retraction of published work is reserved for serious errors​ ​that invalidate results and conclusions and/or when there is scientific misconduct.

For additional author information, visit Manuscript Preparation Authorship requirements.

THMT urges researchers to consider researcher contributions and authorship criteria in multi-region collaborations in effort to promote greater equity and transparency in research collaborations.  Researchers should follow the recommendations set out in the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings when designing, executing and reporting research along with a disclosure statement in the manuscript regarding the global ethics code.

Language Editing 

All manuscripts must be submitted in English and meet the quality standards set by the journal. Writing should be clear and concise with the correct use of grammar and spelling.

There are agencies that can help; for example, we partner with Editage and Paperpal. Authors from developing nations should consider registration with AuthorAid, a global research community that provides networking, mentoring, resources and training for researchers. Eloquenti is another online service for professional proofreading and editing. 

Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities 

Authors are required to disclose financial and non-financial relationships and activities that might bias the interpretation of results. All THMT manuscript submissions must include an uploaded ‘Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities’ document. For more information please visit Manuscript Preparation here.

Embargo Policy 

There are no embargos.  Abstracts of work may be presented at scientific conferences.

Repository Policy, Self-archiving and Digital preservation

Authors may deposit a copy of their paper in an institutional or other repository of their choice for the following versions, without embargo:

  • *Submitted version
  • Accepted version (author accepted manuscript)
  • Published version (version of record)

*Submitted versions may already be available on preprint servers, have undergone open peer review, and have already been assigned a DOI number. THMT accepts these manuscript and article submissions.

Authors should note THMT is a gold open access journal which makes  research output freely and immediately available online on publication.

THMT will also correct known copies of the article in databases such as PubMed and CorssMark, but it is the author’s responsibility to update articles in institutional repositories.

Authors are encouraged to deposit the final published PDF in their institutional repository or any suitable subject repository on publication. A link to THMT’s website is required to ensure integrity, authenticity and provenance of the scientific record, with the online published version identified as the incontrovertible version of record and include the DOI number.

Post publication discussions and corrections

THMT encourages questions and debate post publication. This can be exercised as a letter to the editor, opinion piece to the journal, commentary can be posted on social media platforms such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Medium or Substack. Additionally, PubPeer can be used as an external moderated site. For details, see https://pubpeer.com/static/about.

All authors are encouraged to register their article on PubPeer by posting the article DOI number and encouraging commentary. The registration link is: https://pubpeer.com/register

Mechanisms for correcting, revising or retracting articles post publication are made on CrossMark.

Transparent Peer Review (TPR)

THMT offers Transparent Peer Review as an optional alternative to traditional double-blind review. Authors may choose to publish the full peer-review history of their manuscript — including reviewer reports and author responses — alongside the final article, giving readers a clear view of the scholarly exchange.

Why TPR?
Transparent peer review strengthens trust in research, supports early-career researcher training, and promotes accountability across authors, reviewers, and editors. It also helps reduce bias, improve review quality, and increase confidence in published findings.

Benefits

  • Demonstrates rigorous peer review and provides constructive feedback
  • Encourages fairness, transparency, and thoughtful discussion
  • Helps educate early-career researchers and new editors
  • Enhances trust in medical and digital health research

How It Works

  • Authors and reviewers may opt in or out at submission
  • Authors indicate their TPR preference in the cover letter
  • If any party opts out, the review remains anonymous and double-blind
  • Reviewers may sign their reviews or remain anonymous
  • Accepted open review reports are published as Supporting Information with the article’s DOI

Notes

  • Double-blind review remains the default
  • Review materials are released only upon publication
  • TPR applies only if the author opts in and the manuscript is accepted
  • Reviews from journals not participating in TPR will not be published if a manuscript is transferred

Copyright and Creative Commons License

Authors contributing to THMT agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This allows reuse, subject only to the use being non-commercial, and to the article being fully attributed. Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights, with first publication rights granted to Blockchain in Healthcare Today (BHTY). THMT makes all open access articles freely available from the date of publication. 

Best practices to avoid manuscript rejections

Be sure to select the best category for your paper. Categories appear below. 

  • Original Research
  • Proof of Concept/Pilots/Methodologies
  • Use Case
  • Narrative/Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis
  • Clinical Case Studies
  • Technical Briefs & Short Reports
  • Opinion, Perspective, Point of View

After you have identified your article category, and before you begin formatting your manuscript, to ensure clarity, rigor, and optimal presentation for peer review, please review the appropriate guidance below for developing each relevant component of your paper.

A significant number of manuscript rejections result from avoidable formatting and structural issues. Articles reporting original research are generally organized using the IMRAD structure: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. For an overview of the IMRAD format, please visit https://blog.amwa.org/imrad-format-explained

For additional resources to help authors strengthen article quality and enhance the success of their submission, please see below. Should you have questions or need more guidance, please email the managing editor, John Russo, PharmD, at r.russo@partnersindigitalhealth.com

NOTE

  1. Cover Letters are REQUIRED with your manuscript submission and must contain all the elements stated on the Manuscript Preparation
  2. We strongly encourage you provide a link to where your study data is stored for reference.

What Triggers an Automatic Desk Rejection:

  1. For manuscripts claiming Original Data Collection:
  • Ethics/IRB approval number and institution (required field and verified)
  • Informed consent process description (for human subjects)
  • Data availability statement
  • Do NOT claim "original research" and mimic clinical trial reporting structure while presenting no original data, claims of multi-center data collection with no ethics approval or pre-registration
  • Do NOT submit papers about AI/ML implementation without any actual models or validation.
  1. For any manuscript claiming Prospective Study Design include:
  • Pre-registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, OSF, etc.)
  • Protocol availability or justification for absence
  1. For AI/ML prediction model papers:
  • TRIPOD-AI checklist (mandatory attachment as a supplementary file)
  • Code/model availability statement
  • Validation cohort description
  1. For all Submission Cover Letters (REQUIRED):
  • Explicit article type selection and why it qualifies as such
  • AI writing tool disclosure in the cover letter with which tools were used, the percentage of use, and what was human verified
  • Confirmation that structured abstract elements (if used) match actual study design

Red Flags for Authors and Reviewers

  • Mismatch between structured abstract format and declared article type
  • Claims of multi-center data without institutional specifics
  • "Results" sections that describe capabilities rather than measured outcomes
  • References to unpublished work
  • Excessive arXiv/preprint citations, or thesis sources
  • Grandiose claims without specificity ("significantly improved," "revolutionized," "paradigm shift") without data to support the claim
  • Perfect grammar, yet lacks semantic substance
  • No actual study population
  • No ethics approval
  • No statistical methods
  • No measured outcomes
  • "Results" section restates the hypothesis rather than reporting findings

Journal Pillars