You can submit your research through our online submission system after creating an account.
No, our platform supports free submission and publishing without APCs.
The peer review process typically takes 2–4 weeks depending on the research field.
We align with recognized best practices in scholarly publishing, including COPE guidance for editors, reviewers, and authors. We require integrity in authorship, data reporting, peer review, and corrections.
Authorship requires a substantive contribution to the conception or design; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting or critical revision; and final approval. All authors share accountability for the work’s integrity.
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose all financial and non-financial interests that could influence the work. Disclosures are evaluated by editors and, where relevant, published with the article.
We use rigorous peer review overseen by the Editorial Board. Reviewer identities and reports may be single-anonymous or double-anonymous depending on the journal. Undeclared competing interests disqualify a reviewer.
Submissions are screened using similarity tools. Plagiarism, duplicate publication, and undisclosed text recycling may lead to rejection, correction, or retraction consistent with COPE flowcharts.
AI tools may be used for language polishing only, not for generating core content, analysis, or images unless transparently declared. Authors remain responsible for accuracy, originality, permissions, and compliance with data/participant rights.
Authors must state where data, code, and materials can be accessed, with persistent identifiers where possible. If data cannot be shared (e.g., privacy/legal constraints), provide a justified statement and describe controlled-access procedures.
Adjustments that do not mislead (e.g., uniform brightness/contrast) are allowed, but selective enhancement, splicing without demarcation, or data fabrication are prohibited. Editors may request original, unprocessed files.
State IRB/ethics committee approval, informed consent, trial registration (for clinical trials), and welfare compliance for animals. Manuscripts lacking appropriate approvals cannot proceed.
Where relevant, follow SAGER-aligned reporting: define how sex and/or gender were measured, justify single-sex/gender studies, report disaggregated data and analyses, and discuss limitations and implications.
Use respectful, clear terms aligned with community preferences (people-first or identity-first). Avoid biased or stigmatizing labels. Define demographic categories precisely and explain acronyms on first use.
Yes, preprints and extended conference versions may be considered if transparently declared, properly cited, and not under competing submission. Peer review evaluates novelty beyond prior dissemination.
Yes. Provide a reasoned response addressing the decision and reviewers’ points. Appeals are handled by a senior editor not involved in the original decision.
We follow COPE guidance: publish corrections for honest errors; expressions of concern when investigations are ongoing; and retractions for unreliable findings, misconduct, or unethical research. Notices are linked and indexed.
Editorial decisions are independent of commercial considerations. Advertising, sponsorship, or APCs do not influence acceptance. Boundaries between editorial and commercial content are strictly maintained.
Provide objective, confidential, and timely evaluations; declare conflicts; avoid using information for personal advantage; and give constructive, evidence-based feedback.
Report them transparently with appropriate power considerations and limitations. Null findings are welcome when methods are sound and the research question is meaningful.
Contact the editorial office with details. We follow a documented process, may consult independent editors or the institution, and act in line with COPE recommendations. Whistleblowers are treated confidentially where possible.