In tandem with the Editorial Office, every participant involved in the peer-review process, encompassing Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, and Reviewers, collectively bears the responsibility of upholding the integrity of Sciences Force's editorial procedures. Should any participant harbor ethical concerns regarding a manuscript undergoing review or post-publication, or come across information suggestive of a potential ethical dilemma, immediate contact with the Editorial Office is imperative. Subsequently, the Editorial Office will initiate an investigation following the Sciences Force Comments and Complaints Policy and in adherence to COPE guidelines. Throughout the pre- and post-publication phases, the Editorial Office, led by Managing Editors and Assistant Editors, performs several essential checks. Nevertheless, any concerns raised by Reviewers and Editors are actively encouraged to be reported to the Editorial Office. These checks include: Verification of ethics approval and permissions for research involving human subjects, animals, or cell lines. Scrutiny for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and securing necessary permissions from copyright holders for the inclusion of previously published figures or images. Verification of Clinical Trials Registration, with explicit reference to the registration details in the Methods Section. Compliance, ethics, and research integrity checks in alignment with Sciences Force policies and guidelines. During the evaluation process, Reviewers and Editors are expected to consider the following key aspects: Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest in Peer-Review Processes Promoting transparency, we underscore the paramount importance of acknowledging and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest throughout the peer-review process, from evaluation to decision-making and publication. It is imperative that all involved parties declare any associations that might compromise, or appear to compromise, the unbiased assessment and decision-making process. In situations where a Reviewer or Editor perceives that a conflict of interest, or multiple conflicts, may not impact the peer review or decision-making, it is still advised for the involved individual to recuse themselves. This ensures the avoidance of any perceived conflicts of interest and upholds the integrity of the entire peer-review process. Types of Conflicts of Interest Personal or Collaborative Conflicts Reviewers and Editors are expected to abstain from reviewing manuscripts submitted by authors affiliated with their institution, research or project collaborators, personal friends, family members, or spouses. Furthermore, participation in the review or decision-making of manuscripts authored by mentors, mentees, or those with whom they have collaborated within the past 3 years is discouraged. Financial or Professional Conflicts Financial conflicts involve any professional or business relationships, financial interests, or competing interests that might introduce bias into the review process. Reviewers and Editors should not receive benefits, salary, board memberships, funding, or grants from companies with interests in the reported results. Participation in the review or decisionmaking of manuscripts featuring conflicts of interest that could potentially introduce bias is strongly discouraged. Other Conflicts Any other conflicts of interest, whether actual or perceived to influence peer review and decision-making, should be transparently declared. It is crucial for Reviewers and Editors to assess a manuscript's merit, originality, and appropriateness for the journal in adherence to Sciences Force editorial guidelines. Sciences Force is committed to diversity and inclusion, and any personal biases affecting peer review must be disclosed. In the event of a conflict, alternative Reviewers and/or Editors will be assigned. If an Editor submits a manuscript, it will be handled by other Editors without a conflict of interest.