Editorial Policies
Editorial Policies & Publishing Standards
Verduci International maintains clear editorial and publishing policies designed to ensure transparency, ethical integrity, and consistency across all journals. These standards are integrated into the overall publishing workflow and apply to all stages of the editorial process.
All journals maintain full editorial independence, with editorial decisions based solely on scientific merit and free from any commercial or financial influence.
They follow a shared framework of editorial policies and uphold high standards of scholarly publishing. Specific aspects such as copyright and licensing may vary between journals, with full details available in each journal’s dedicated policies section.
Open Access Policy
All research articles published in Verduci International journals are fully open access and are made immediately available to read, download, and share upon publication.
Articles are published under a Creative Commons license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and used in accordance with the terms of the applicable license.
All content can be accessed and downloaded freely from our websites, with no subscription or registration required.
This open access model is based on the principle that unrestricted access to scientific research supports the global dissemination of knowledge and fosters wider academic collaboration.
Copyright and Licensing
Detailed information regarding licensing, conflicts of interest, and journal-specific policies is available in the dedicated Policies, COI, and Licensing section of each journal’s website.
Preservation and Archiving
Verduci International journals are committed to ensuring the permanent availability, accessibility and preservation of scholarly research by upgrading digital file formats to comply with new technology standards. All our files and manuscripts are archived and preserved in CLOCKSS.
Self-Archiving Policy
Verduci International Journals allow authors to archive specific versions of their manuscripts in institutional, disciplinary, or personal repositories under the conditions described below.
Published Version (Version of Record)
Authors may archive only the Version of Record (the final, published PDF available on the journal website) in any institutional, disciplinary, or personal repository.
The archived file must include:
- The full and correct citation of the article, and a link to the Version of Record on the journal’s website.
- No other version of the manuscript may be shared or posted publicly by the authors; reuse of the Version of Record by third parties is governed by the applicable Creative Commons license.
Peer-Review Policy
All journals published by Verduci International operate under a rigorous peer-review process aimed at ensuring the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published content.
Manuscripts submitted to the journals are evaluated by qualified independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Editorial decisions are made by the Editors-in-Chief and editorial boards based on reviewers’ comments, scientific merit, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with ethical standards.
The peer-review process is conducted independently from commercial or financial considerations, and all journals maintain full editorial independence.
Preliminary Screening
All submissions first undergo a preliminary quality check conducted by the editorial team. This includes verifying compliance with the journals’ ethical and technical standards through plagiarism detection and image-integrity screening with specialized software. Papers submitted for consideration must adhere to the editorial instructions for authors as well as the journals’ policies. Only those papers that meet these criteria are likely to undergo formal review.
Editorial Assessment
Eligible manuscripts are then evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), in collaboration with Associate Editors (AEs), to determine whether the submission falls within the journal’s aims and scope and meets basic scientific criteria.
Based on this assessment, manuscripts may be sent for external peer review or rejected at this stage. Submissions considered out of scope or methodologically unsuitable may be declined without external review, sometimes following informal consultation with subject-matter experts.
External Peer Review
Manuscripts selected for review are assigned by the EiC or an AE to two or three independent reviewers, chosen among Editorial Board members or qualified external experts.
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, scientific reputation, and absence of conflicts of interest. They must not have co-authored publications with the authors within the past five years and must belong to different institutions. All submitted materials are treated as strictly confidential.
Editorial Decision
Following peer review, the EiC or AE evaluates reviewers’ reports and issues an editorial decision, which may include acceptance, minor or major revision, or rejection. Revised manuscripts are re-assessed, whenever possible, by either the same reviewers or the Associate Editor who handled the initial evaluation, to ensure that all substantive comments and suggestions have been appropriately addressed. In some cases, rejection may be accompanied by constructive feedback to help authors revise and potentially resubmit their work upon invitation. Manuscripts may be rejected outright for reasons such as limited relevance to the field, lack of originality, or significant technical or interpretational flaws. The Editors in Chief retain the final authority on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
The journals may seek additional expert opinions, particularly when reviewers’ evaluations diverge or when authors contest potential misunderstandings. The journals take reviewers’ criticisms seriously and make every effort to ensure that valid scientific criticisms are properly addressed before a final editorial decision is made, while also monitoring peer review timelines to ensure an efficient, transparent, and fair evaluation process.
Authors’ Appeals
Articles that have been rejected may be resubmitted solely if all concerns outlined in the rejection feedback are thoroughly rectified and accompanied by a detailed letter delineating the resolution of these concerns. In no circumstances will an article be reconsidered if it was rejected due to significant issues. The journals are open to authentic appeals concerning editorial decisions.
Any appeal may be submitted via the contact details provided on each journal’s website through an official letter signed by all authors. The appeal should include detailed responses to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, as well as any new information or data the authors wish to be considered.
The Editors in Chief evaluate the authors’ argument alongside the reviewers’ reports to determine whether an additional opinion is necessary. The journals will promptly inform the authors about the outcome of the complaint. The Editors in Chief may either uphold the initial decision or invite authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript with updated information. Note that decisions on appeals are final.
Timing
The journals evaluate all manuscript submissions as expeditiously as possible. Nonetheless, the duration of the peer review process may vary depending on factors such as reviewer availability, the author’s response to revision timelines, and the extent of revisions needed. For instance, if there are conflicting reports from reviewers or if a report is delayed, additional expert opinions may be solicited. Additionally, revised manuscripts are typically reassessed by the original reviewers for feedback. Reviewers may also request multiple revisions of a manuscript. The editorial office responds promptly to authors upon receiving reviewers’ feedback. Therefore, authors should contact the editorial office only in cases of significant delay, defined as exceeding 2 months since the last feedback.
Confidential Process
Submitted manuscripts are confidential property, and therefore, Editors must not share information about manuscripts, including submission and/or status in the review process, except for authors and reviewers.
Editors, authors, and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process for submitted manuscripts. Correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports, and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed, or otherwise publicized without prior written consent.
AI in Peer Review
According to ICMJE guidelines, reviewers and Editors are advised not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools where confidentiality cannot be assured. They should be aware that using AI in manuscript processing can breach confidentiality. Manuscripts often contain sensitive information that must remain within the peer review process. In addition, generative AI tools have significant limitations, including outdated information and the risk of generating biased or false content.
Therefore, our journals ask reviewers and Editors to use AI tools only for language editing. Additionally, we ask reviewers to transparently declare the use of such tools in their review report.
Instructions for Reviewers
Peer review is the cornerstone of the scientific process, ensuring that only high-quality research with significant scientific merit reaches publication, thereby fostering trust within the scientific community. By meticulously scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, and interpretation presented in manuscripts, reviewers help maintain the standards of excellence expected in scientific research.
Reviewers should adhere to the basic principles as established by COPE.
As per journals’ policies, the peer review is conducted for transparency on Publishing Manager. Therefore, the reviewers are asked to create an account in the system to receive an official invitation to review an article. Following the invitation to review, reviewers will receive the article abstract to assess the aims, key points, and conclusions of the manuscript and decide whether to accept the review.
Before starting the review, please, evaluate the following issues:
- Does the article match my expertise? If not, you can refuse the review and suggest a possible reviewer who is an expert in the field.
- Do I have enough time to review the manuscript?
- Are there any potential conflicts of interest to declare? For more information, please, check the section “COI: Application to Reviewers and Editors”.
Once the request for review has been accepted, reviewers have 21 days to finalize the report.
Reviewers have four options to provide overall feedback on the article:
- Accepted: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
- Revised: Minor revisions must be addressed by the authors before the paper can be considered for publication.
- Revised Major: The manuscript presents severe criticisms that must be addressed by the authors.
- Rejected: The article presents significant flaws that cannot be addressed.
How to write a report
When reviewing the article, please give due consideration to the following items:
- Topic and Originality
Is the topic of the paper aligned with the aims and scopes of the journals? Does the study bring any innovation to the medical field? Are there other similar studies in the literature? Does the study meet the Journal’s qualitative standards? Are the findings of sufficient scientific significance to warrant publication? Does sufficient literature evidence support the outcomes?
- Overall Organization, Clarity, and Methodology
Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
Abstract: Does the Abstract reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: Does the introduction outline the author’s objectives and clearly articulate the problem under investigation? Typically, the introduction should provide a succinct summary of pertinent research to offer context and elucidate how the author’s findings either challenge or expand upon existing literature.
Methodology: Does the author accurately describe the data collection process? Is the chosen methodology appropriate for addressing the research question? Is there adequate information provided for replication? Does the article detail the procedures followed in a logical manner? If novel methods are employed, are they sufficiently elucidated? Was the sampling method appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Does the article specify the type of data collected and provide precise measurement descriptions?
Results: Have the authors effectively communicated their research findings in written form? Are the results presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the statistical analyses conducted. Are the statistical methods accurate? If statistical analysis is unfamiliar, please notify the editor when submitting your report.
Discussion/Conclusions: Are the claims made in these sections substantiated by the results and deemed reasonable? Have the authors discussed how the results align with expectations and previous research? Does the article support or challenge existing theories? Does the conclusion articulate how the research contributes to advancing scientific knowledge? Have the study’s limitations been adequately addressed and analyzed?
- Figures and Tables
Are the figures readable and of high quality? Are data adequately reported in tables? Are the data reported in figures and tables coherent with those reported in the manuscript?
- References
Are references appropriate, relevant, and recent? Are there too many self-citations?
- Conflict of Interest
Is there any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that the authors must declare?
Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s) or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s), or organization(s).
Potential competing interests include consultancies, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications and registrations, and grants or other funding.
- Ethics Declaration and Informed Consent
When reporting experiments on animals and human subjects, the authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Moreover, for studies involving human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research comply with the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013. Please evaluate the ethics and data availability statements to ensure they are sufficient.
According to the study’s design, is patient-informed consent required? If so, can the statement be considered valid?
Please note that it is mandatory to provide the authors with thorough and detailed comments to improve the manuscript and meet the Journal’s quality standards. Comments should be articulated thoughtfully to ensure that the author comprehends the necessary actions for enhancing their paper, rather than solely highlighting its deficiencies. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should not independently investigate but should promptly inform the editors of their suspicion.
To streamline the feedback preparation process, a checklist summarizing the above considerations is available in Publishing Manager. This allows reviewers to easily indicate the improvements authors should address while keeping the evaluation parameters in mind.
Authorship
By submitting a manuscript to Verduci International Journals, the corresponding author declares that all listed authors have agreed to the submission, approved the final version of the manuscript, and agreed on the authorship list and contribution statements. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have provided their agreement for submission and for managing communication with the journal on behalf of all co-authors before and after publication.
According to the ICMJE recommendations, authorship is based on 4 criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
- Final approval of the version to be published.
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
The author list should include all appropriate researchers and no others. Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. Our journals encourage transparency by publishing statements on author contributions since the journal cannot investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. If the authors cannot resolve such disagreements among themselves, they should refer the matter to the appropriate institutional authority. Authors are, therefore, required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript that specifies the contribution of every author. Contributions to the work that do not meet authorship criteria, such as study support, general mentoring, data collection, study coordination, and similar activities, can be recognized in the Acknowledgments.
Corresponding Authors’ Responsibilities
The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication among co-authors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, that the order of the authors has been agreed upon by all authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper has been submitted. The corresponding author also ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements are properly reported.
At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work to mention any unpublished material included in the manuscript. The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere by other authors (for example, figures) and provide written permission from those authors and/or publishers for the re-use of such material.
After acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding author, who shares it with all co-authors and deals with the journal on their behalf. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all contents in the proof, in particular, that the names of co-authors are present and correctly spelled and that affiliations are correct.
The name and e-mail address of the corresponding author are published in the manuscripts.
The corresponding author of published material has a responsibility to inform the journal promptly if they become aware of any part that requires corrections. Any published correction requires the consent of all authors, so time is saved if requests for corrections are accompanied by a signed agreement by all authors. In cases where one or some authors do not agree with the correction statement, the corresponding author must include correspondence to and from the dissenting author(s).
The corresponding author should also act as the point of contact for future concerns (if any) regarding the integrity of the research.
Should the corresponding author fail to fulfill the aforementioned responsibilities (e.g., not responding to critical emails, not aiding authors in journal-related requests), the journals reserve the prerogative to communicate with all authors to resolve any disputes or issues.
Changes to Authorship
Authors should consider the list and order of authors carefully before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the first submission. Any deletion, addition, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list can be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the Editors in Chief.
To request this change, the Editors in Chief must receive a letter from the Corresponding Author specifying the reason for the change in the author list, along with a written confirmation letter from all authors stating they agree with the removal, addition, or rearrangement. In the case of removal or addition of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being removed or added.
Data and Materials Availability
A foundational principle of publication entails enabling others to replicate and advance the claims made by authors in their published works. A requisite for publication in our journals is that authors must promptly provide materials, data, code, and associated protocols to readers without undue restrictions. This requirement aims to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of published results.
All original research manuscripts published in our journals must include a data availability statement. In cases where no new data have been generated, such as in a review, the statement “No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data Availability is not applicable to this article” should be included.
The data availability statement must transparently outline the conditions for accessing the “minimum dataset” required to interpret, verify, and extend the research reported in the article. The manuscript should specify who will make the data available, and any sharing restrictions must be discussed with the Editors upon submission.
Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the Editors at the time of submission, and such restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript. Editors may decline further consideration of the manuscript if restrictions are found to be excessively prohibitive after evaluation.
Data availability statements should include pertinent information on the following aspects:
Access to primary datasets (generated during the study) and referenced datasets (analyzed in the study) must be provided. Accession codes or other unique identifiers, if relevant and publicly available, should be provided.
– For clinical trial data, authors should adhere to ICMJE guidelines, providing details on the sharing of de-identified participant data, specific data to be shared, availability of related documents, timeline for data availability, access criteria, and mechanism for sharing.
– Third-party data should be made available for peer review upon request, within the terms of a data use agreement, and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.
Proprietary data: It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain an agreement with the third-party data provider and ensure that the datasets used in the study will be accessible under the conditions specified in the data availability statement.
Administrative data (including data maintained by governments, local authorities, and international organizations): research using administrative data must adhere to the local regulatory and legal frameworks governing data use.
When third-party data cannot be made available, the data availability statement should clearly state the restrictions.
Including large datasets in supplementary information is not recommended. The preferred approach is to make the data accessible through repositories.
Data Retention
Authors are required to retain the data used in their publication for 10 years. The journals reserve the prerogative to request access to all data in cases involving allegations of research or publication misconduct.
Data Citation
Datasets deposited in repositories should be formally cited in the article reference list, including authors, title, publisher (repository name), and identifier. The accession number must also be provided in the paper for datasets.
Conflict of Interest (COI)
Definition
Competing interests are defined as any situation wherein multiple interests, financial involvements, or other factors exist that, through their potential influence on behavior or content or from the perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity, or perceived value of a publication.
Please regard the following items as illustrative examples, though not exhaustive, of significant conflicts of interest.
Funding: This pertains to support for research activities, which could include salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending conferences, and other related expenses, provided by organizations that stand to benefit financially from the outcomes of the publication.
Employment: This encompasses any recent, current, or expected employment by organizations that could experience financial gain or loss as a result of the publication, particularly if such employment occurred during the research project.
Personal Financial Interests: Financial conflicts arise when participants in the publication process receive or expect to receive monetary compensation, gifts, patents, or stocks that could influence their work on a specific publication. This involves ownership of stocks or shares in companies that may be financially influenced by the publication, receipt of consultation fees or other forms of compensation from organizations affected by the publication’s outcomes, and possession of patents or patent applications whose value could be affected by the publication.
Personal relationships: Interpersonal connections with family, friends, adversaries, rivals, or associates can present conflicts of interest. For instance, a reviewer might struggle to deliver an impartial assessment of articles authored by individuals with whom they share a working history.
COI: Application to Authors
At the time of submission, our journals’ policy requires that authors reveal any COI, including financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or any other situations that could raise questions of bias in either the reported work or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated. Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s), or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s) or organization(s). When evaluating whether to declare a conflict of interest (COI), consider the following question: Are there any arrangements or situations that have not been disclosed, which may come to light after publication and have not been previously declared?
As an integral part of the online submission process, corresponding authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these. If the corresponding author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the authors in question will then be required to submit a completed COI form to the Editorial Office. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy.
If authors have any conflicts of interest that require declaration, they are obliged to disclose them either during the submission process or via the provided form, which must be completed and uploaded to the Publishing Manager system upon submission.
In the event that a previously undisclosed potential competing interest for an author of a published paper comes to the attention of the editors, the journal will start an investigation as per COPE flowchart, reassessing the article to evaluate whether to apply for a retraction or publish an erratum.
COI in Industry-Sponsored Research
Authors whose manuscripts are submitted for publication must declare all relevant sources of funding in support of the preparation of a manuscript. Our journals require full disclosure of financial support as to whether it is from the pharmaceutical or any other industry, government agencies, or any other source. This information should be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript.
Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether or not the text was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission, i.e., whether the study was written with full investigator access to all relevant data and whether the sponsor exerted editorial influence over the written text. This information should also be included in the cover letter. In addition to disclosure of direct financial support to the authors or their laboratory and prior sponsor-review of the paper, authors are asked to disclose all relevant consultancies within the 12 months prior to submission, since the views expressed in the contribution could be influenced by the opinions they have expressed privately as consultants. This information should be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript.
COI: Application to Reviewers
Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. Reviewers and external peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts. Therefore, reviewers must state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist that could undermine the validity of the evaluation. Reviewers are requested to mark the appropriate checkbox when accepting the review on the online system Publishing Manager. COI for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, and editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ COI to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified.
COI: Application to Editors and Editorial Office
Editors responsible for final manuscript decisions should refrain from participating in editorial processes if they have relationships or engagements that could result in potential conflicts concerning the articles under consideration.
Editorial staff involved in editorial decisions must disclose any relevant relationships or activities that may influence editorial judgments and abstain from decisions where a potential conflict of interest exists. Specific policies in the “Description of Peer Review” section.
Ethics Standards
Human Subjects
Research involving human participants or animals must have received approval from an appropriate Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB), where required, and must comply with internationally recognized ethical standards. Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not provide adequate ethical documentation or that raise concerns regarding ethical conduct or research integrity.
According with the ICMJE recommendations, all investigators should ensure that the planning conduct and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2013. All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board) and be prepared to provide documentation if requested by the editor during the review process.
If there is doubt that the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional, or national review body explicitly approved the aspects of the study that are in doubt. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude Editors from forming their own judgment on whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. All research involving humans must have approval from the IRB (Institutional Review Board) or an equivalent local Ethics Committee.
Declaration of Helsinki
When reporting experiments on human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975 (as revised in 2013).
For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys, cross-sectional studies), all participants must be fully informed about anonymity, how the data will be used, the purpose of the research, and any associated risks. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee or an official IRB exemption must be obtained before conducting the study. The journals retain the right to request documentation, such as the approval/exemption letter, survey questionnaire, and informed consent procedure/form.
Ethics Committee approval (including the acceptance number and approval date) is deemed necessary for retrospective observational studies. Should specific Ethics Institutions/Universities have different guidelines, Authors must furnish the directives outlined by the Ethics Committee of the respective institution, confirming that Ethics Committee approval is not mandated for retrospective observational studies.
If the authors have submitted an application to the Ethics Committee and the committee determines that ethical approval is not required, the name of the Ethics Committee granting the exemption should be stated in the “Institutional Review Board Statement” or “Ethics Approval Statement,” together with a clear and detailed explanation of the waiver.
Informed Consent
All research involving human participants requires informed consent from participants (or their parent/legal guardian if they are under 16 years old), and this consent must be explicitly stated in the manuscript. Manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups, or cases where consent might not be fully informed, will be subject to the editor’s discretion.
Appropriate consents, permissions, and releases must be obtained in case authors wish to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals in their publication. This is to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679.
Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potentially identifiable material might be available via the Internet or in print after publication.
Some Considerations:
• Images of patients or research subjects should not be used unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and explicit consent has been obtained as part of the consent process.
• If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, authors should provide assurances that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
Formal consents are not required for the use of entirely anonymized images from which the individual cannot be identified – for example, x-rays, ultrasound images, laparoscopic images, etc.
• If consent has not been obtained, it is generally insufficient to anonymize a photograph by using eye bars or blurring the individual’s face.
Clinical Trials
All clinical trials submitted to our journals must be registered in accordance with the ICMJE recommendations. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) defines a clinical trial as “any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Health-related interventions are those used to modify a biomedical or health-related outcome; examples include drugs, surgical procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, educational programs, dietary interventions, quality improvement interventions, and process-of-care changes.”
When submitting your manuscript, please include the unique trial number and the name of the registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov or ISRCTN) at the end of the abstract and in your cover letter. It is recommended to complete the registration at the time of obtaining the first participation consent. Acceptable registries should contain the minimum 24-item trial registration dataset at the time of registration and must be a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
Approval to conduct a study by an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board) does not fulfill the ICMJE requirement for prospective clinical trial registration. For instance, registering retrospectively at the point of manuscript submission fails to fulfill ICMJE requirements.
Secondary analyses of primary clinical trials should be referenced by the primary trial’s registration number rather than registered as distinct clinical trials. This information must also be disclosed in the statements, and authors must cite the source by inserting the unique identifier.
Animal Studies
Research involving animals should adhere to globally recognized standards and to the ARRIVE guidelines for documenting experiments involving live animals. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether they followed institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals; in cases of doubt, the Editors reserve the right to reject papers. Authors should ensure that the experimental conditions and procedures of their research minimize any harm to animals.
Animal species/strain, sex, source (vendor name, location), age range, weight, and any additional data should be indicated. Please note that we encourage the use of both male and female animals. The use of a single sex should be scientifically justified.
The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board should be stated in the “Ethics Approval” statement. Research procedures must be carried out in accordance with national and institutional regulations. Statements on animal welfare should confirm that the study complied with all relevant legislation.
Cell Lines
The Materials and Methods section should report the origin of any cell lines. Contamination or misidentification of cell lines undermines the validity of research observations. Therefore, authors are required to describe the source of the cell line, as well as the method used for authentication, in the Materials and Methods section. References must also be given to either a published paper or to a commercial source. Written informed consent must be obtained and confirmed when de novo cell lines of human origin are used. Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.