Editorial Policies

Authorship Guidelines

Authorship recognizes contributions to a study and entails accountability. To qualify as an author, individuals must:

  1. Contribute significantly to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; or the creation of software; or drafting or revising the work substantially.
  2. Approve the submitted version (and any major modifications involving their contributions).
  3. Accept personal accountability for their contributions and address integrity issues in the work.

Researchers in study locations should be included as co-authors if they meet these criteria. Contributors who do not qualify should be acknowledged instead.

Responsibilities of Corresponding Authors
The corresponding author manages communication with the journal and editorial office during submission, peer review, and publication. They ensure the manuscript complies with journal requirements, including authorship, ethical approval, clinical trial registration, and conflict of interest declarations. Post-publication, they remain available to address any inquiries or critiques.

Changes in Authorship
The submitting author must include all co-authors in the submission system. Requests to alter the authorship list are considered only in exceptional cases, following the journal's authorship policy. Such requests should be made via an authorship change form submitted to the editorial office. Changes after manuscript acceptance are generally not permitted, except under extraordinary circumstances. Concerns about potential authorship manipulation may prompt institutional inquiries or rejection of the changes.

Publication Ethics Policies
The journal maintains rigorous publication ethics standards, adhering to best practices and addressing misconduct in scientific, academic, or publishing activities. Authors are encouraged to review these policies to ensure compliance. Proven misconduct may lead to rejection, retraction, or further action with the authors' institution.

Plagiarism, Redundant Publication, and Ethical Text-Use Policies

All submissions must adhere to the following ethical standards to ensure the integrity of academic publishing.

Originality and Duplicate Submission

Only original content will be considered for publication. Authors must confirm the originality of their work upon submission. Manuscripts cannot have been previously published or under review elsewhere, either in part or in full. Resubmissions from previously rejected works by other publishers are allowed only if definitively rejected. Duplicate submissions, where the same work is submitted to multiple journals, are considered unethical.

Fabrication and Falsification

Fabricating data or images, as well as falsifying or manipulating them, is strictly prohibited. Manuscripts generated by third-party services or "paper mills" will be rejected.

Image Manipulation and Data Integrity

Concerns about image manipulation are taken seriously. Modifications to individual features within an image, such as enhancement, obscuration, movement, recycling, removal, or addition, are not allowed. Image processing (e.g., brightness, contrast, or color adjustments) must apply uniformly to all pixels and must not alter the figure's information. Cropping of gels and blots should be minimized, and full scans of original gels must be provided if cropping is necessary. Reuse of control images for illustrative purposes must be explicitly disclosed in figure legends. Any required image processing for data interpretation must include details of the software and techniques in the methods section. Image grouping or splicing must be transparently described in the manuscript and figure text.

Advanced tools are used to detect recycling, modification, or manipulation. If concerns arise, authors must provide original images and data for verification. Failure to address these issues will result in manuscript rejection or institutional notification. Post-publication concerns will also be investigated, and lack of cooperation may lead to retraction.

Falsification and Fabrication of Data

Intentional falsification or fabrication of data, including fake data or deceptive image manipulation, is strictly prohibited. Manuscripts produced by commercial entities on behalf of researchers do not align with publication standards and will be rejected. Proactive measures are taken to identify and decline suspicious submissions before peer review.

Redundant Publication

Publishing the same research or overlapping findings more than once, with or without minor modifications, is unethical. Authors must disclose any related publications and clearly articulate how their submission contributes beyond existing studies. Manuscripts found to involve redundant publication will not be accepted.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is the use of previously published work without proper attribution. Authors must ensure all direct quotations are appropriately cited and acknowledge their own prior work where relevant.

Ethical Reuse of Text and Permitted Publications

Theses and Dissertations
Content from an author's thesis or dissertation may be included in a manuscript if it is the only form in which it has previously appeared, complies with the author's university policy, and is accessible online. If the thesis is not archived online, it is treated as unpublished data and must align with restrictions on unpublished content for certain article types. Any inclusion should be acknowledged in the manuscript and cited in the reference list.

Conferences, Proceedings, and Abstracts
Manuscripts based on conference papers must significantly expand upon the original work to qualify as original content. Authors must add substantial new material—such as additional data, experiments, or fresh analysis—resulting in original discussion or conclusions. At least 30% of the content should be new. Authors should:

  • Obtain permission if they do not hold the copyright for the conference paper.
  • Cite the conference in the acknowledgments or references section, as applicable.

Blogs
Material previously shared in non-academic platforms like blogs must be disclosed in the acknowledgments section when submitting a manuscript.

Preprints
Authors are encouraged to share their work on preprint servers or repositories before or during submission, provided the platform does not restrict the author’s copyright or reuse rights. Manuscripts must include correct attribution for preprints at submission or re-submission. The preprint should be cited in the acknowledgments and referenced appropriately.

After publication, authors are encouraged to link the preprint to the final peer-reviewed version to facilitate access and citation. Manuscripts previously published or under review in a scientific journal, book, or similar platform cannot be considered for publication.

The Peer Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team. To streamline the process, only manuscripts likely to meet editorial standards are sent for formal peer review. Papers deemed unsuitable due to limited general interest or other factors are promptly declined without external review, though informal input from specialists may inform these decisions.

Manuscripts of potential interest undergo formal review, typically by two or three reviewers, with additional reviewers consulted as needed for specialized input. Based on reviewer feedback, editors may decide to:

  1. Accept the manuscript (with or without revisions).
  2. Request revisions addressing specific concerns before a final decision.
  3. Reject the manuscript but suggest resubmission after substantial work.
  4. Reject outright due to limited novelty, technical flaws, or insufficient conceptual advancement.

While reviewers can recommend specific outcomes, editors consider diverse perspectives and conflicting advice to make the final decision. Detailed arguments for or against publication are more valuable than direct recommendations. Decisions are not based solely on the majority opinion but on the strength of the arguments and broader considerations, including the paper’s relevance to the scientific community.

Reviewers may be asked for follow-up advice, especially when disagreements arise or clarifications are needed. However, prolonged disputes are avoided. Reviewers are generally expected to assess revisions of manuscripts they initially reviewed, but resubmitted papers may not be sent back if criticisms are not adequately addressed.

Technical criticisms are taken seriously, and when a single reviewer opposes publication, other reviewers may be consulted to ensure a balanced perspective. Additional reviewers are rarely involved unless specific technical expertise is required.

Conflicts of Interest Policy

Conflicts of interest include anything that might interfere with or be perceived as interfering with impartial peer review, decision-making, or article publication. These may stem from personal, financial, or professional relationships or affiliations.

All authors and editorial board members must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest during submission or when accepting editorial or review assignments.

The review process is designed to ensure transparency and objectivity, with the names of handling editors and reviewers made public upon article publication, making conflicts of interest evident. Failure to disclose conflicts may lead to manuscript rejection, and undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication will be addressed following internal policies and ethical guidelines.

Potential conflicts should be disclosed in the statement section during submission. This information will be included in the final published version of the article.

Acknowledgement Guidelines

The acknowledgement section is for expressing gratitude to contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship and for declaring relevant funding information. It should not list individuals who qualify as authors under authorship criteria or be used for declaring competing interests, including those related to funding. Competing interests must be disclosed separately as per the relevant policy.

Authors should carefully consider authorship and contributions, particularly in multi-region collaborations, to foster equity in research partnerships. Acknowledgements should be concise and avoid mentioning anonymous referees, editors, or including overly effusive remarks.

Funding Acknowledgements
Funding should be acknowledged if the publication directly arises from the grant’s scope or activities supported by the grant, such as experimentation or financial support for publication. If unrelated, the grant should not be acknowledged. Ensure all authors disclose relevant funding sources and comply with funder-specific requirements.

Example Format for Grant Acknowledgement
"A.B.C. received support for this research from [Funder, grant number xxxx]. D.E.F. received support for the publication from [Funder, grant number xxxx]."

AI Authorship and Usage Policies

AI Authorship
Current authorship criteria require accountability, which AI models like Large Language Models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, cannot fulfill. The use of LLMs must be documented in the Methods section, except when used for redaction such as improving readability, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style. Human accountability and author agreement on the final text are essential.

Generative AI Images
Generative AI images raise unresolved copyright and ethical issues. Such images are not permitted for publication.

AI Use in Peer Review
Peer reviewers are selected for their expertise and accountability, which generative AI tools cannot replace due to limitations such as outdated knowledge and inaccuracies. Manuscripts, often containing sensitive information, should not be uploaded to generative AI tools. If AI tools are used in any aspect of evaluation, their usage must be transparently declared in the peer review report.

These policies will be regularly reviewed to adapt to developments in AI technologies.

Appeals & Complaints Policy

Appeals
Authors seeking reconsideration of a manuscript rejection should initially contact the Handling Editor, following instructions on the journal's website. As priority is given to active submissions, appeal decisions may take longer. The editorial team has the final say on appeals.

Details on submitting an appeal are available on the journal website. If successful, authors will receive further instructions regarding the next steps for their manuscript.

Complaints
Complaints can address process failures (e.g., delays in handling submissions) or publication ethics issues (e.g., misconduct by authors, editors, or reviewers).

  • Process-related complaints: Contact the Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief or the Handling Editor. They will investigate and provide feedback to the complainant and relevant stakeholders to improve procedures.
  • Publication ethics complaints: The Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will follow established ethical guidelines. For complex cases, they may consult in-house advisors. Feedback will be provided to the complainant, and appropriate actions will be taken.

If the complaint concerns the Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief, escalate it to the journal's editorial management team.