Ethics Statement

Editors’ responsibilities

Fair assessment and editorial independence

Editors assess academic merit, importance, originality, validity, clarity and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, political views or institutional affiliation. Acceptance and rejection decisions belong to the journal, independently of governments or other agencies. The Editor-in-Chief controls the editorial process and publication timing.

Confidentiality and conflicts of interest

Manuscripts are shared only with the corresponding author, reviewers and publisher as appropriate. Editors must protect privileged information and must not use unpublished work or ideas for personal research or advantage. An editor with a competitive, collaborative or other conflict involving authors, companies or institutions must withdraw and arrange handling by another editorial-board member.

Peer review, decisions and investigations

Every manuscript considered for publication must be assessed by at least two reviewers with relevant expertise. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision, considering significance, originality, clarity, reviewer comments and applicable requirements concerning libel, copyright and plagiarism, and may consult other editors or reviewers. Editors must respond promptly to ethical complaints and investigate reported misconduct even years after publication, using COPE flowcharts. Substantiated concerns require an appropriate published correction or retraction.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

Expertise, timeliness and constructive assessment

Peer review supports editorial decisions and helps authors improve their work; scholars should contribute fairly to this process. Reviewers who lack the necessary expertise or cannot meet the deadline must promptly notify the editor and decline. Reviews must be objective, clear and supported by arguments. Personal criticism is unacceptable.

Confidentiality and impartiality

Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed without the editor’s specific authorization. Reviewers must disclose conflicting relationships and withdraw where impartiality is compromised. Unpublished work must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the authors’ express written consent. Privileged information and ideas must remain confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. These duties also apply to invited reviewers who decline.

Sources and overlap

Reviewers should identify relevant uncited publications and ensure previously reported observations, derivations and arguments are appropriately referenced. They must alert the editor to substantial similarities or overlap with published work or manuscripts under consideration elsewhere.

Authors’ responsibilities

Accurate reporting, data and reproducibility

Research reports must be accurate, concise and impartial, with enough detail and references to permit replication. Reviews must be accurate, objective and comprehensive; opinion and perspective articles must be identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable. Data must be collected and interpreted honestly. Authors must supply raw data when requested for editorial review and provide public access where practicable. Retain research data for at least 10 years after publication, preferably in a suitable repository, while protecting participant confidentiality and respecting proprietary rights and legal restrictions.

Originality, sources and publication

Submit original work and acknowledge all influential sources. Plagiarism includes presenting another’s work or results as one’s own and copying or substantially paraphrasing without attribution. Cite others’ words and ideas appropriately. Private communications require the source’s explicit written permission; material obtained through confidential services, including manuscript or grant review, requires the relevant authors’ explicit written permission.

Do not submit the same or substantially similar work concurrently to multiple journals or submit previously published work. Secondary publication, such as a translation or clinical guideline, is permissible only when the authors and editors of both journals agree, it preserves the primary publication’s data and interpretation, and it cites the primary publication.

Authorship and acknowledgements

Each author must accept public responsibility and must have: made a significant contribution to the study’s conception, design, execution, data acquisition or analysis/interpretation; drafted or critically revised the manuscript for intellectual content; and approved the final version and its submission. The corresponding author must ensure that the author list meets these criteria and all coauthors approve submission. Substantial contributors who do not qualify as authors, including those providing technical, writing, editing or general support, should be acknowledged with their written permission.

Funding and competing interests

At initial submission, disclose financial and non-financial interests that could influence results or interpretation. These include funding, honoraria, employment, consultancies, memberships, speaking engagements, equity, expert testimony, patent licensing, and relevant personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs. Identify all financial support and grant or reference numbers where applicable.

Safety, ethical approval and consent

Clearly describe unusual hazards involving chemicals, procedures or equipment. Human and animal research must comply with applicable laws and institutional guidelines, with approval from the appropriate institutional committee stated in the manuscript. Human research requires a statement of informed consent, and participants’ privacy must always be protected.

Peer review and correction of the record

Cooperate promptly with requests for data, clarification, ethics approvals, consent records and copyright permissions. Address revision requests systematically, point by point, and resubmit by the deadline. Promptly report significant errors in published work and cooperate with correction or retraction. If a third party identifies an error, authors must correct or retract the work or provide evidence supporting its accuracy.

Publisher’s responsibilities

Integrity and corrective action

The publisher and editors must act on alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication and plagiarism, and take reasonable steps to identify and prevent misconduct. They must never encourage or knowingly permit it. Appropriate action includes a prompt erratum, clarification, correction or retraction.

Access and preservation

The publisher maintains long-term availability through preservation partners and its own digital archive. Under its green archiving policy, preprints, accepted manuscripts and publisher versions/PDFs may be archived without restriction.

Artificial intelligence (AI)

Disclosure and human accountability

AI tools cannot be authors. Human authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity and references of the entire work. At submission, disclose whether AI-assisted tools were used. Where used, identify the tool and version, purpose, affected parts and human checks in the cover letter and manuscript. Report writing or translation assistance in acknowledgements; describe research, coding, analysis or figure-generation use in methods, with sufficient detail for reproducibility.

Accuracy, images and research integrity

Independently verify AI-generated facts, citations, calculations and other outputs. AI must not fabricate or falsify data, references or findings, or produce misleading images. Clearly label and document legitimate AI-generated illustrations and AI-based research methods. Protect personal data, copyright and confidential information.

Confidential review and editorial decisions

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, reports or identifying information to AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured without explicit author permission. Reviewers must obtain editorial approval before AI-assisted evaluation, disclose that use and verify their comments. Peer-review judgments and editorial decisions remain human responsibilities.

Undisclosed or misleading use may require clarification, rejection, correction or retraction following a fair investigation. This policy draws on COPE’s authorship guidance.