Authors must present an accurate account of the original research conducted and provide an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts must comply with the journal's submission guidelines.
Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. A manuscript should not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, whether by other researchers or by the authors themselves, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Direct quotations or words taken from other researchers' publications must be clearly identified with quotation marks and accompanied by appropriate citations.
Authors should generally not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Authors are also expected to avoid publishing redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical and unacceptable publication practice. Multiple publications arising from a single research project must be clearly identified, and the primary publication must be appropriately referenced.
Authors must acknowledge all sources of data used in their research and cite publications that have influenced the nature and development of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided.
Authorship of a research publication must accurately reflect the individual contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Individuals who have made substantial contributions should be included as co-authors. Contributors whose involvement is less substantial or primarily technical may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.
Authors must ensure that all listed authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission and to their inclusion as co-authors.
All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of the work. All sources of financial support for the research project must also be disclosed.
If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their submitted or published work, they must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article as appropriate.
Based on the reports and recommendations of the editorial board and peer reviewers, editors may accept, reject, or request revisions to a manuscript. Decisions should always be based on the validity and quality of the work and its significance to researchers and readers.
Editors may be guided by the journal's editorial policies and must comply with applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, plagiarism, and other relevant matters. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.
Editors are responsible for everything they publish and should maintain appropriate procedures and policies to ensure the quality of published material and the integrity of the published record.
Editors must ensure that every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial evaluation to assess its originality, relevance, and suitability for the journal. Editors should organize and conduct the peer review process fairly, objectively, and appropriately.
The journal's peer review process must be clearly explained in the information provided to authors, including an indication of which sections of the journal are subject to peer review. Editors must select appropriate peer reviewers with sufficient expertise for manuscripts being considered for publication and should avoid reviewers who have potential conflicts of interest.
Editors must ensure that every manuscript submitted to the journal is evaluated solely on the basis of its intellectual and scholarly content, without discrimination based on gender, race, religion, nationality, political views, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics of the authors.
An essential part of the responsibility for making fair and unbiased decisions is maintaining editorial independence and integrity. Because editors have significant authority over publication decisions, the editorial process must be conducted as fairly, objectively, and transparently as possible.
Editors must ensure that information concerning manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must carefully assess any potential issues concerning data protection and patient confidentiality.
Where applicable, this includes ensuring that appropriate informed consent has been obtained for research involving human participants and that consent for publication has been obtained when required.
Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the written consent of the authors.
Editors must not participate in editorial decisions concerning manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from professional, personal, financial, competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the manuscript.
Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. Such information must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviewers must not share, reproduce, distribute, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers should ensure that authors have properly acknowledged all sources of data and relevant previous research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Any statement that an observation, derivation, argument, or finding has previously been reported should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Reviewers should promptly inform the journal if they identify substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and another manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal or a previously published article.
Reviewers should also notify the journal if they have concerns regarding potential ethical issues, research misconduct, plagiarism, data manipulation, or other irregularities in the research, writing, or submission process. Such concerns must remain confidential, and reviewers should not independently investigate the matter unless specifically requested by the journal.
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly and provide supporting arguments and evidence where appropriate.
Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions regarding the specific feedback required from them, unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. Reviews should be constructive, respectful, and helpful to the authors in improving their manuscript.
Reviewers should clearly distinguish between additional investigations that are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript and those that would merely strengthen, expand, or provide further context for the work.
Privileged information and ideas obtained through peer review must remain confidential and must not be used for personal or professional advantage.
Reviewers should not accept or undertake the review of a manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, personal, professional, financial, or other relationships with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the manuscript.
In a double-blind review process, if reviewers suspect or discover the identity of the authors and believe that this knowledge creates a potential conflict of interest, they must immediately inform the journal.
Reviewers should respond to review invitations and complete their evaluations within a reasonable and agreed timeframe. Reviewers should only accept an invitation to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident that they can complete and return the review within the proposed or agreed period.
If additional time is required, reviewers should promptly inform the editor and request an appropriate extension. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the specified timeframe, they should notify the editor as soon as possible so that the manuscript can be assigned to another qualified reviewer.
```
