Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, clinical relevance, and ethical compliance. The journal maintains independence from sponsors and payment processing.

Peer review is confidential and aims to provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and validity.

Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary to preserve objectivity.

• Ethics approval and informed consent for human studies
• Animal welfare compliance and care details
• Clinical trial registration before enrollment
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding sources
• Originality and prohibition of duplicate submissions

Image manipulation or data fabrication is grounds for rejection. Integrity screening is applied to protect the scholarly record.

Research involving vulnerable populations should include additional protections and clear consent procedures.

Authors should report data availability and provide sufficient methodological detail for replication.

Studies involving biospecimens should describe consent for storage, reuse, and secondary analysis to support transparency.

If errors are identified, the journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as appropriate.

Authors may appeal decisions with a clear scientific rationale. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors not involved in the original decision.

Complaints about process or ethics are handled confidentially by editorial leadership.

Clear documentation of decisions helps resolve complex cases and supports fairness across submissions.

Post publication updates are linked to the original article to preserve the integrity of the record.

Reviewers should focus on methodological rigor, clinical relevance, and data transparency. Comments should be constructive and evidence based.

Confidentiality is required for all manuscripts. Reviewers must not share content or data outside the review process.

Reviewers should disclose conflicts promptly to protect fairness.

Balanced reviews help editors reach decisions efficiently.

Respectful reviewer language improves author engagement and revision quality.

All authors must approve the final manuscript and meet contribution criteria. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is not permitted.

Duplicate submission, plagiarism, and fabricated data are grounds for rejection and may result in notification to institutions.

If concerns arise after publication, the journal follows established procedures for investigation and correction.

Authors should disclose any overlapping publications and clarify how the current manuscript differs to avoid redundancy.

Misconduct investigations are handled confidentially and with due process for all parties.

Authors should provide data availability statements and describe analytical methods in sufficient detail for replication.

When data or code cannot be shared, authors must explain restrictions and provide a pathway for qualified access when possible.

Clear data documentation reduces reviewer queries and supports long term reuse.

Consistent reporting of datasets and software versions improves reproducibility in translational research.

Transparent data narratives improve confidence in clinical translation.

Editorial decisions are made solely on scientific merit and relevance. Financial considerations do not influence peer review outcomes.

Editors and reviewers do not have access to payment information and are instructed to avoid conflicts of interest.

This separation protects author confidence and maintains credibility for readers and clinicians.

Independent decision making supports consistent standards across all submissions.

Transparent separation of roles supports trust in the publication process.

Editorial independence is central to our publishing reputation.