1.1 Mission
We exist to advance reliable, reproducible scholarship and to serve the research community with fair, transparent, and timely publication. Our publishing decisions are guided by methodological quality, ethical compliance, and scholarly relevance. We champion open, respectful scientific debate and the permanent integrity of the scholarly record.

1.2 Editorial Independence

• Freedom from commercial influence. Editorial decisions (including peer-review selection, acceptance, revision, and rejection) are made independently of any commercial considerations such as advertising, sponsorship, reprints, or institutional partnerships.
• Separation of roles. Business, marketing, and sales functions do not participate in editorial decisions. Editors have full authority over the editorial content they oversee.
• No preferential treatment. Submissions originating from sponsors, advertisers, or partner organizations receive no privileged handling and are evaluated by the same criteria and editorial processes as all other submissions.
• Special content safeguards. Sponsored collections or supplements, if offered, must meet the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular content. Sponsorship roles and funding sources are disclosed prominently, and sponsors have no role in editorial decisions.

1.3 Conflicts of Interest (Editorial & Reviewer)

• Mandatory disclosure. Editors and reviewers must declare any financial, personal, or professional interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence their judgment.
• Recusal. Individuals with relevant conflicts are recused from handling or reviewing the affected manuscript. An alternate editor without a conflict is appointed.
• Editor-authored submissions. Manuscripts authored or co-authored by an editor are handled through a fully independent editorial route, with no access to confidential information or influence over the decision.

1.4 Decision Principles

• Evidence-based assessment. Decisions are based on methodological rigor, clarity of reporting, ethical approvals where applicable, and the value of the contribution to the field.
• No discrimination. Editorial evaluation is blind to authors’ personal characteristics, employment status, seniority, institutional prestige, nationality, or funding sources.
• Integrity over novelty. Novelty is welcomed but does not override sound methods, transparency, or ethical compliance.

1.5 Governance & Accountability

• Defined responsibilities. Editorial leaders are accountable for the quality and integrity of the content they oversee, including reviewer selection, conflict-of-interest management, and timely decisions.
• Term clarity and review. Editorial appointments include clear role descriptions, performance expectations, and periodic review.
• Annual declarations. Editors complete yearly conflict-of-interest declarations and update them promptly upon any material change.

1.6 Protection of Editorial Freedom

• No coercion. Attempts to influence editorial decisions through political, institutional, or financial pressure are not tolerated.
• Whistleblowing channels. Staff, editors, reviewers, and authors can confidentially report undue interference. Reports are investigated promptly with appropriate safeguards.
• Documented decisions. Key editorial decisions are recorded with rationales sufficient for internal audit and,where appropriate,author communication.

1.7 Transparency & Public Commitments

• Public policies. All editorial policies, including peer-review model, conflicts of interest, and complaint/appeal routes, are published and kept current with version histories and “last-updated” dates.
• Metrics with context. Any service metrics we display (e.g., median time to first decision) include the exact date range and methodology used.
• Corrections to policy. If we identify ambiguities or errors in our policies, we correct them promptly and note the change.

1.8 Legal & Ethical Boundaries

• Lawful compliance. Editorial freedom operates within applicable laws (e.g., defamation, privacy, export controls) and the duty to protect participants and the public from harm.
• Retaliation prohibition. We prohibit retaliation against anyone who raises good-faith concerns about editorial independence or research integrity.

2.1 Purpose

This policy defines who qualifies as an author, how contributions are recorded, and how authorship changes are handled. It protects credit where it is due and prevents unethical practices such as ghost, guest, or gift authorship.

2.2 Authorship Criteria

To be listed as an author, a contributor must meet all of the following:

• Made a substantial scholarly contribution to the conception or design of the work; or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
• Participated in drafting the manuscript or critical revision for important intellectual content.
• Gave final approval of the version to be published.
• Agrees to be accountable for the work’s accuracy and integrity and to address questions about any part of the work.
• Contributors who do not meet all four criteria must be named in Acknowledgments with their specific role (e.g., technical help, language editing, administrative support, funding acquisition without intellectual input).

2.3 Contributorship: CRediT Taxonomy

• All submissions must include a CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) statement specifying each contributor’s roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition).
• Each author’s roles must be accurate and complete.
• Roles alone do not determine authorship; the 2.2 criteria still apply.

2.4 ORCID Identification

• Every author must provide a validated ORCID iD. The corresponding author is responsible for collecting ORCID iDs and ensuring they match the authors’ legal names or established scholarly names.

2.5 Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author ensures that:

• All listed authors meet the authorship criteria and approve the final manuscript and any significant post-acceptance changes.
• All contributors who do not qualify for authorship are properly acknowledged with permission.
• Required disclosures are complete (conflicts of interest, funding statements, ethics approvals, trial registration where applicable).
• Data, materials, and code availability statements are accurate and actionable.
• Multiple corresponding authors are allowed when justified; their responsibilities are shared.

2.6 Order of Authors & Equal Contribution

• The order of authors is a collective decision of the authorship group and should reflect disciplinary norms and the relative intellectual contributions.
• Equal contribution is permitted and must be indicated clearly (e.g., “X and Y contributed equally”).
• Any changes to author order after submission require written agreement from all authors and editorial approval (see 2.9).

2.7 Group, Consortium, and Large-Author Collaborations

For consortia and large collaborations:

• List the consortium name as the author if that is the group’s standard, with an accessible roster of individual members and their CRediT roles (e.g., in a supplement or repository).
• Identify the guarantor(s)—one or more authors who accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the work.
• Ensure that conflicts of interest and ethics approvals are completed at the individual level where relevant.

2.8 Prohibited Authorship Practices

• Ghost authorship: substantive writing or analysis by uncredited individuals.
• Guest/gift authorship: listing individuals who did not meet the authorship criteria (e.g., due to seniority, reputation, or funding alone).
• Purchased or brokered authorship: any paid authorship or authorship offered by “paper mills” or similar services.
• Violations may lead to rejection, retraction, institutional notification, and other corrective actions.

2.9 Changes to Authorship (Add/Remove/Reorder)

• Requests must include: (a) the reason for the change, and (b) written confirmation (email or form) from every listed author—including any added or removed author—stating agreement with the change.
• If consensus cannot be reached, the publisher may place the manuscript on hold and refer the matter to the authors’ institutions or follow a documented dispute process.
• Authorship changes after acceptance may require a published correction describing the change and its rationale.

2.10 Name, Identity, and Affiliation

• Authors may use a consistent scholarly name; diacritics and local scripts are supported where publishing systems allow.
• Affiliation(s) should reflect where the majority of the work was performed; additional current affiliations can be included as appropriate.
• We support confidential, minimal-burden author name updates post-publication where feasible, with metadata propagation to indexes and repositories.

2.11 Acknowledgments & Third-Party Assistance

• Acknowledge individuals and organizations who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., technical staff, data access, editorial or language support).
• Disclose paid services (e.g., statistical consulting, professional editing) with provider names and a brief description of the assistance.
• Obtain written permission from acknowledged individuals to be named.

2.12 Responsibilities for Integrity & Transparency

Every author shares responsibility for the integrity of the work. Specific duties include:

• Ensuring that data, code, and materials are accurately described and, where promised, available.
• Promptly notifying the publisher of significant errors or omissions discovered after publication and cooperating in issuing corrections or retractions as needed.
• Maintaining original data and image files for a reasonable period consistent with field norms and legal/ethical requirements.

2.13 Dispute Resolution

Disputed authorship is first addressed within the authorship group. If unresolved, the publisher may:

• Request written statements from all parties,
• Suspend editorial handling while fact-finding occurs, and
• Seek guidance from relevant institutions or follow recognized external frameworks for dispute resolution.
• Editorial actions focus on protecting the scholarly record and may include expressions of concern or corrections.

2.14 Transparency to Readers

All published articles include:

• A CRediT contribution statement for each author,
• An authorship note for equal contribution or consortium authorship if applicable, and
• Complete ORCID identifiers.

3.1 Scope
This policy covers any artificial intelligence (AI) or automated system used in the creation, analysis, visualization, translation, or editing of scholarly work, as well as tools used by editors and reviewers during assessment. It applies to text, images, audio/video, code, and data.

3.2 AI Is Not an Author

AI systems-generative or otherwise-cannot be listed as authors. Authorship requires human accountability for the integrity, originality, and accuracy of the work. Human authors must accept responsibility for all content generated or assisted by AI.

3.3 Disclosure Requirement (Manuscripts)

Authors must disclose, in the manuscript, any use of AI or automated tools with specific detail:

• What tool was used (product name and version, if known).
• Where it was used (e.g., drafting text, grammar polishing, figure generation, coding assistance, statistical analysis, translation).
• How outputs were verified and edited by the authors.
• Data exposure: whether any non-public or personal data were input into the tool.
• A short AI Use Statement appears in the Methods or Acknowledgments. If no AI was used, no statement is required.

3.4 Acceptable Uses (with human oversight)

• Language editing (grammar, clarity, translation).
• Drafting boilerplate texts (e.g., method templates) that are fully reviewed and rewritten as needed by authors.
• Code assistance for routine tasks, provided authors review, test, and document code and dependencies.
• Figure creation or enhancement that does not misrepresent data; all manipulations must be disclosed.
• Screening utilities (e.g., reference formatting, duplicate-checking) that do not alter scientific content.

3.5 Prohibited Uses

• Listing AI as an author or citing an AI system as a primary source of facts or original ideas.
• Using AI to fabricate, falsify, or inappropriately manipulate data, images, statistics, or citations (including hallucinated references).
• Concealing AI-generated content or failing to disclose meaningful AI assistance.
• Feeding confidential or identifiable participant data to external tools without lawful basis, consent (where required), and adequate safeguards.
• Using AI to write peer review reports on manuscripts not assigned to the user or to breach review confidentiality.

3.6 Verification & Accountability (Authors)

• Authors must fact-check AI-assisted text and validate any numbers, code outputs, or statistical results.
• Authors remain responsible for plagiarism checks, permissions for third-party content, and accurate citation of all sources.
• For code or analysis produced with AI, authors must provide runnable code, details of the environment (versions, packages), and test evidence that results are reproducible.
• Image outputs must be traceable to original data; keep unprocessed originals and processing logs.

3.7 Data Protection & Confidentiality

• Do not upload personal data, confidential data, or unpublished manuscripts to tools that may reuse inputs for training or lack adequate contractual safeguards.
• When institutional or legal restrictions apply (e.g., data transfer limits), authors must comply and document their compliance in the Data Availability or Methods section.
• Redact or anonymize data before tool use when feasible.

3.8 Citation & Permissions

• Cite datasets, code libraries, and software used in analysis per field norms.
• Do not cite a chat transcript as a scholarly source; instead, cite the underlying primary literature the model references.
• If AI-generated images or media are used, disclose their status and ensure no third-party rights are infringed.

3.9 Image, Figure, and Media Integrity

• Disclose all adjustments (e.g., brightness, contrast, denoising) and ensure they are uniform and non-misleading.
• AI-based upscaling, inpainting, or segmentation must not alter the scientific meaning of images. Provide original files upon request.
• For synthetic illustrations (e.g., conceptual diagrams), label as illustration and avoid implying empirical measurement.

3.10 Statistical, Computational, and Code Assistance

• Document prompts, parameters, and post-processing steps that materially affect results.
• Provide a Data/Code Availability statement with persistent links (e.g., DOI repositories).
• For AI-assisted code, include unit tests or minimal reproducible examples that demonstrate correctness.

3.11 Editors & Reviewers — Responsible Use

Editors and reviewers may use AI for language polishing of their own text or for organizational aids (e.g., summarizing public methods), not for confidential manuscript content unless:

• The tool is approved for confidential use, and no manuscript text or data leave secure environments.
• Reviews must reflect the reviewer’s own critical judgment; do not submit AI-generated reviews as if they were original assessments.
• Do not upload confidential manuscripts or reviewer reports to tools that store or train on user inputs.

3.12 Publisher Screening Tools

The publisher may employ vetted automated tools to assist with:

• Plagiarism and duplicate publication checks,
• Image integrity screening,
• Reference and citation anomaly detection,
• Statistical or code red flags (where appropriate).
• Findings trigger human editorial review; automated outputs do not determine decisions on their own.

3.13 Disclosure Format (Template)

AI Use Statement (example):
“Portions of language editing were assisted by an AI tool. The authors verified and edited all content. No confidential or personal data were shared with external systems. Statistical analyses and figures were performed by the authors; code and data are available as stated in the Data Availability section.”

3.14 Record-Keeping & Audit

• Keep original data, code, images, and AI-related logs (e.g., prompts, major parameters) for a reasonable retention period consistent with field norms and legal requirements.
• Upon editorial request, provide materials sufficient to verify claims. Failure to verify may lead to correction or retraction.

3.15 Breaches & Remedies

• Non-disclosure, misrepresentation, or misuse of AI may result in rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
• Serious or repeated breaches may be referred to institutions or funders and may incur submission bans for a defined period.

3.16 Equity & Accessibility

Authors who use AI for accessibility (e.g., dyslexia-friendly drafting, language support) are welcome to do so with disclosure and verification. Accessibility support never replaces author responsibility.

3.17 Training Data Ethics (Awareness)

When AI tools are central to the research (e.g., new models), authors must describe training data provenance, licensing, consent where applicable, risk of bias, and evaluation methods. Provide a model card or equivalent documentation.

4.1 Purpose and Scope
This policy ensures readers can evaluate potential influences on research and editorial decisions. It applies to authors, editors, guest editors, reviewers, and publisher staff involved in assessment or decision-making. It covers financial and non-financial interests, funder roles, and third-party services.

4.2 Definitions

• Conflict of Interest (COI): Any interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence professional judgment. A COI is not misconduct; it is a condition to be disclosed and managed.
• Financial interests: Employment, consultancies, honoraria, speaker fees, travel support, research grants, equity or stock options, patents, royalties, paid expert testimony, paid writing or editing.
• Non-financial interests: Personal, academic, or ideological relationships; competitive advantage; leadership roles; editorships; advisory memberships; close collaborations within the past three years.
• Funder: Any entity providing money, materials, data, access, or in-kind support, including agencies, charities, companies, and consortia.
• Third-party services: Professional or commercial assistance (e.g., statistical consulting, language editing, data collection firms, CROs).

4.3 General Principles

• Full disclosure: All relevant interests must be declared at submission and updated if circumstances change.
• Transparency of funding and roles: Manuscripts must state who funded what and what role the funder played in design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, and the decision to submit.
• Independence: Analytic and editorial decisions must be independent of funders, sponsors, advertisers, and institutional stakeholders.
• Documentation: Disclosures are recorded in the editorial system and published with the article when applicable.
• Proportional management: Declared interests are managed through recusal, additional oversight, or independent replication as needed.

4.4 Responsibilities - Authors

• At submission: Provide a comprehensive COI statement and a Funding statement for all named authors.
• During review: Update disclosures if new relationships arise.
• At publication: Agree that the final, plain-language COI and Funding statements will appear in the article.
• Record-keeping: Retain supporting documentation (e.g., grant award letters, consultancy contracts) for audit on reasonable request.

4.4.1 Author COI Statement (published)

• A COI statement must appear in the article. Examples of acceptable wording:
  • No conflicts: “The authors declare no competing interests.”
• With conflicts (financial and non-financial):
  • “Author A has received consulting fees from a diagnostics company unrelated to this work. Author B serves on the advisory board of a professional society. Author C reports research funding to their institution from a national research agency for a different project. All other authors declare no competing interests.”

4.4.2 Funding Statement (published)

• Role-free support:
  • “This work was supported by external funding. The funder had no role in study design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; writing of the report; or the decision to submit.”
• Role-involved support:
  • “This work was supported by external funding. Representatives of the funder contributed to [design/analysis/interpretation/writing]. Final responsibility for the decision to submit rested with the authors.”

4.4.3 Data/Materials Access

• If the funder restricts data or materials, the manuscript must state the restriction and justify it. Where possible, deposit data/code in a trusted repository and specify the access route.

4.5 Responsibilities - Editors and Publisher Staff

• Annual disclosure: Editors and relevant staff file annual COI declarations and update them promptly upon change.
• Recusal: An editor with a relevant COI (financial ties, close collaboration within the last three years, same department, family or romantic relationship, strong personal dispute) must not handle the manuscript; a conflict-free editor is assigned.
• Editor-authored content: Submissions by editors are processed through an independent editorial route with firewalled access and documented decision trails.
• Sponsored content and supplements: Sponsor roles are disclosed; sponsors have no decision authority; peer review remains standard.

4.6 Responsibilities - Reviewers

• Before accepting an invitation: Reviewers disclose any COI that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their report. Examples include recent collaboration, direct competition, employment ties, or financial relationships with companies whose products or interests are central to the manuscript.
• If uncertain: Reviewers describe the situation to the editor; the editor decides whether to proceed or reassign.
• During review: Reviewers must not use confidential information for personal advantage or share it with third parties.

4.7 Time Windows for COI

• Default window: Interests within the past three years, 
• current, and known future commitments (e.g., pending consultancies).
• Longer windows: Patent applications, equity holdings, and continuing royalties are relevant beyond three years and must be declared.

4.8 Prohibited or Restricted Arrangements

• Ghost management: Undisclosed participation by sponsors, professional writers, or analysis firms is prohibited.
• Publication control: Agreements that give funders the right to veto, delay, or suppress publication are not permitted. Contracts must allow authors to publish accurate results without undue restriction.
• Conditional authorship: Paid or brokered authorship is not allowed.

4.9 Managing Declared Conflicts (Actions)

Management actions depend on the risk of influence and may include:

• Editorial recusal and reassignment.
• Independent statistical review or additional peer reviewers.
• Transparency notes in the article describing how potential bias was mitigated.
• Editorial expression of concern if issues arise post-publication while investigation proceeds.
• Correction or retraction where the scholarly record requires it.

4.10 Third-Party Services and Industry Collaboration

• When professional services contribute substantially (e.g., data collection firms, CROs, medical writers, statisticians), their identity, funding source, and roles must be disclosed in the manuscript (Acknowledgments or Methods).
• Medical writing assistance must be acknowledged by name; undisclosed writing support is unacceptable.
• For industry-funded studies, authors must state who had data access, who performed analyses, and who controlled the decision to submit.

4.11 Public Disclosure and Indexing

• Published articles carry COI and Funding statements in a consistent location (often immediately before the References).
• Metadata includes COI and funder information to facilitate indexing and public discovery.

4.12 Investigating Undeclared or Disputed COI

• Trigger: Concerns may be raised by readers, reviewers, editors, or institutions.
• Process: Fact-finding, author contact, request for documents, and an assessment of materiality.
• Outcomes: No action; publication of an addendum or correction with full disclosure; expression of concern; or retraction for material nondisclosure.
• Notification: Where appropriate, relevant institutions or funders are notified.

4.13 Sanctions for Non-Disclosure or Misrepresentation

• Possible sanctions include submission bans for a defined period, withdrawal of under-review manuscripts, and retraction of published articles when the record is compromised.

4.14 Accessibility and Plain-Language Clarity

• All COI and Funding statements are written in clear, plain English understandable to non-specialists. Jargon is avoided; acronyms are expanded at first mention.

4.15 Records, Audits, and Retention

• COI and Funding forms are stored securely for a defined retention period consistent with legal and institutional requirements.
• The publisher may conduct periodic audits to verify compliance.
• A version history for this policy is maintained with public “last updated” dates.

4.16 Consent for Named Acknowledgments

• Individuals named in Acknowledgments must consent to being named. If consent cannot be obtained, describe contributions without identifying the person.

4.17 Example: Combined Disclosure Section (for publication)

• Competing interests: “The authors declare no competing interests” or a plain-language list of relevant interests, as shown in 4.4.1.
• Funding: A concise description of sources and roles, as shown in 4.4.2.
• Data access: A one-sentence note stating who had access to the data and who verified the data.

4.18 Continuous Improvement

• This policy is periodically reviewed to align with evolving best practices in research integrity and transparency. Substantive changes are communicated on the policy page and applied prospectively.

5.1 Purpose and Scope
This policy sets the minimum ethical requirements for any submission that involves humans, animals, sensitive data or materials, fieldwork, dual-use research, or high-risk methods. It applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and publisher staff across all journals we publish.

5.2 Core Principles

• Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.
• Do no harm and minimize risk; risks must be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits and scientific value.
• Independent ethical oversight prior to data collection when required.
• Transparency and accountability in reporting approvals, consent, and safeguards.

5.3 Human Participants (Non-clinical and Clinical)

• Ethics approval: Research involving human participants, identifiable data, or biological specimens must have prior approval from an independent ethics committee/IRB or documented exemption. Provide the committee name, approval number (if issued), and date.
• Informed consent: Obtain and document prospective, informed consent. For minimal-risk secondary analyses of properly de-identified data, justify any consent waiver granted by an ethics body.
• Privacy and confidentiality: De-identify data to accepted standards. Remove direct identifiers from text, figures, and supplementary files. Use controlled-access repositories for sensitive datasets.
• Vulnerable groups: Additional safeguards are required for children, older adults with impaired capacity, refugees, detainees, economically disadvantaged persons, and other groups with limited autonomy. Assent and guardian consent are required where applicable.
• Community and Indigenous data: Respect community review processes, data sovereignty principles, and benefit-sharing agreements. Clearly state permissions and governance arrangements.

5.4 Clinical Trials and Interventional Studies

• Prospective registration: Register trials in a WHO-recognized public registry before enrolling the first participant, and include the registration ID in the manuscript.
• Protocol and deviations: Provide access to protocols (or extended methods) and explain deviations from the protocol or pre-registration.
• Data monitoring and stopping rules: Report oversight arrangements (e.g., DSMB) and any stopping criteria.
• CONSORT-aligned reporting: Provide participant flow, allocation methods, blinding, outcomes, and harms.

5.5 Use of Human Biological Materials

• Consent scope: Ensure consent covers the specific use or clearly states broad consent terms for future research.
• Biobanks and MTAs: Describe governance, access conditions, Material Transfer Agreements, and anonymization level.
• Genomic data: Follow field norms for controlled access (e.g., dbGaP/ENA-EGA equivalents) and address re-identification risks.

5.6 Animal Research and Welfare

• Ethics approval: Animal studies require prior approval from an accredited committee. State the committee, approval identifier (if issued), and date.
• 3Rs—Replacement, Reduction, Refinement: Describe justification for animal use, humane endpoints, and steps to minimize suffering.
• Care and housing: Report species/strain, sex, age, housing conditions, anesthesia/analgesia, and euthanasia methods compliant with recognized guidelines.
• Wildlife and field studies: Confirm permits; describe capture/handling methods, release, and post-procedure monitoring.
• ARRIVE-aligned reporting: Provide group sizes, randomization, blinding, and statistical methods.

5.7 Fieldwork, Environmental, and Cultural Heritage Research

• Permits and permissions: Confirm and cite permits for sampling, excavation, export/import, and access to protected areas.
• Local collaboration and benefit sharing: Document equitable partnerships and capacity building where relevant.
• Environmental impact and biosafety: Describe mitigation for ecological disturbance, invasive species risks, or pollutant handling.

5.8 Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC) and Biosecurity

• Risk identification: Authors must assess whether methods or results could be misused to cause significant harm (e.g., enhancing pathogen transmissibility or virulence, bypassing diagnostics, weaponization).
• Risk mitigation: Describe safeguards, facility level (e.g., BSL), and redaction or delayed release if needed.
• Compliance: Adhere to relevant laws on select agents, export controls, and shipping of biologicals. Editorial decisions may require modifications to methods or data sharing to reduce misuse risk.

5.9 High-Risk Methods and Hazardous Materials

• Biosafety/chemical safety: State facility certifications and training. Report incident-prevention measures for toxins, radiological sources, nanomaterials, or high-powered lasers.
• Engineering and cybersecurity: For systems with safety implications (e.g., autonomous robotics, critical infrastructure, offensive security tools), describe fail-safes, simulation-first testing, and coordinated disclosure practices.

5.10 Sensitive Data and Data Protection

• Data minimization: Collect only necessary data; avoid storing directly identifiable data unless essential and consented.
• Anonymization and access control: Use robust de-identification and access agreements; prefer controlled-access repositories for sensitive or rare-disease datasets.
• Cross-border transfer: Disclose mechanisms for lawful transfer where applicable (e.g., Standard Contractual Clauses); do not expose participants to legal or social harm.

5.11 AI/ML Using Human or Sensitive Data

• Dataset provenance: Disclose dataset sources, consent scope, licenses, and known biases.
• Fairness and safety: Report performance across subgroups and limitations; avoid deployment claims not supported by evidence.
• Reproducibility: Provide code, model cards, and evaluation protocols where legally and ethically permissible.

5.12 Deception, Waivers, and Debriefing

• Use of deception: Allowed only with prior ethics approval where no alternative exists and risk is minimal. Provide debriefing procedures and explain any waiver of debriefing.
• Consent waivers: Justify with reference to minimal risk and impracticability; include the approving body’s rationale.

5.13 Compensation and Undue Influence

• Payments to participants: Must be proportionate to time and inconvenience, not coercive, and disclosed in methods or ethics statements.

5.14 Incidental Findings and Duty of Care

• Clinical and non-clinical contexts: Describe procedures for managing incidental findings (e.g., genetic variants of clinical significance), including referral pathways where appropriate.

5.15 Images, Audio, and Identifiable Media

• Explicit consent: Required for publication of images, audio, or video that could identify participants, including partially obscured faces or distinctive tattoos/scars.
• Children: Obtain guardian consent and, where feasible, child assent. Avoid unnecessary identifiability.

5.16 Emergency, Conflict, and Disaster Settings

• Context-appropriate oversight: Where formal IRBs are unavailable, document community or humanitarian review processes and ethical safeguards.
• Do-no-harm priority: Extra caution for risks of reprisal, stigmatization, or surveillance; anonymize locations and traits when necessary.

5.17 What to Report in the Manuscript (Minimum Set)

• Name of ethics committee/IRB and approval number or exemption with justification.
• Consent procedures (including assent/guardian consent if applicable) and data-protection measures.
• Trial registration ID for interventional studies and access to protocol.
• Animal welfare approvals, permits, housing and care details, and humane endpoints.
• Fieldwork permits, export/import licenses, and benefit-sharing agreements where relevant.
• DURC/biosafety assessment and mitigation, including facility level and any justified redactions.
• Data/code availability statements with repository links and access conditions.

5.18 Editorial Screening and Verification

• Pre-review checks: Submissions are screened for ethics approvals, consent, trial registration, animal welfare statements, permits, and DURC flags.
• Conditional acceptance: Editors may require additional documentation (e.g., blank consent forms, permit copies, IACUC/IRB letters).
• Independent expertise: High-risk manuscripts may undergo specialist ethics or statistical review.

5.19 Non-Compliance and Remedial Actions

• Before publication: Manuscripts with inadequate ethics documentation may be rejected or held pending correction.
• After publication: Credible concerns trigger inquiry; editorial responses may include corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions. Institutions and funders may be notified where appropriate.
• Sanctions: Repeated or serious breaches may result in submission bans for a defined period.

5.20 Record-Keeping and Retention

• Authors should retain raw data, consent documents (or proof thereof), animal welfare logs, permits, and biosafety records for a period consistent with legal requirements and field norms.
• On reasonable request during editorial evaluation or post-publication audit, authors must provide documentation sufficient to verify compliance.

5.21 Accessibility and Plain-Language Ethics Statements

• Ethics statements must be written in clear, plain English. Avoid jargon; define acronyms at first use. Provide translations where this materially improves participant understanding or community engagement.

6.1 Purpose

• Clear, complete reporting lets others evaluate, reproduce, and build on published work. We require authors to follow discipline-appropriate reporting guidelines and to submit completed checklists and supporting materials at submission and revision.

6.2 What We Require for Every Submission

• A completed reporting-guideline checklist mapped to page and line numbers (or section labels) in the manuscript.
• A brief deviations table explaining any items that are not applicable or not feasible, with justification.
• A Data/Code/Materials Availability Statement (see Section 7) and citation of any datasets/software with persistent identifiers.
• Versioned protocols, preregistrations, and analysis plans where applicable, with stable links.
• Original figure/image files and a short description of any processing (uniform adjustments only).

6.3 Core Guidelines by Study Type

• Use the most current versions. When a study spans types, include all relevant checklists.
• Randomized trials: CONSORT (use extensions as relevant: cluster, non-inferiority, pragmatic, pilot/feasibility; CONSORT-Harms; CONSORT-AI for AI-involved interventions).
• Systematic reviews/meta-analyses: PRISMA 2020 (add PRISMA-S for search strategies; PRISMA-IPD for individual participant data; PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews).
• Observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional): STROBE (plus STROBE-ME for molecular epidemiology).
• Diagnostic accuracy: STARD.
• Prediction/prognostic models: TRIPOD (and TRIPOD-AI when applicable).
• Qualitative research: COREQ or SRQR, as suited to the methodology.
• Case reports: CARE.
• Animal research: ARRIVE (including details on randomization, blinding, housing, analgesia, humane endpoints).
• Health economic evaluations: CHEERS.
• Quality improvement studies: SQUIRE.
• Intervention description: TIDieR to fully describe what was done, by whom, where, and with what materials.
• Omics and specialized domains: MIAME (microarrays), MINSEQE (sequencing), REMARK (tumor markers), MIBBI/FAIR-consistent domain standards where relevant.

6.4 Minimum Reporting Elements (All Empirical Studies)

• Research question and design (including any preregistration ID).
• Eligibility/sampling criteria; recruitment setting; dates of data collection.
• Interventions/exposures or index tests, comparators, and co-interventions; detailed so others can replicate (materials, doses, timing, training).
• Outcomes (primary/secondary) with precise definitions and timing; any changes from protocol explained.
• Sample size determination and assumptions (power parameters, interim analyses).
• Randomization/blinding procedures (sequence generation, concealment, masking) or reasons not feasible.
• Statistical methods, including model specifications, inference criteria, treatment of missing data, multiplicity adjustments, and sensitivity analyses.
• Effect sizes with uncertainty (confidence/credible intervals) and exact p-values where appropriate.
• Data integrity checks, software and versioning, and a reproducible pathway from raw to analyzed data.
• Harms/adverse events reporting (definitions, ascertainment, severity grading).
• Limitations and potential sources of bias, with direction and magnitude where possible.

6.5 Images, Figures, and Media

• State the source of each figure (original experiment, external dataset, or illustration).
• Disclose uniform adjustments (brightness/contrast) and avoid selective enhancement or splicing.
• Keep and provide original, unprocessed files on request.
• Clearly label illustrations or conceptual schematics to avoid implying empirical measurement.

6.6 Negative, Null, and Replication Findings

• We welcome well-designed negative or null studies and replications. Reporting standards are identical to positive findings; emphasize precision, uncertainty, and power rather than “significance” alone.

6.7 Complex/Hybrid and Interdisciplinary Studies

• When studies combine methods (e.g., trial + qualitative process evaluation; modeling + empirical data), include all relevant checklists and describe integration procedures (triangulation, mixed-methods design type, model validation).

6.8 AI/ML Studies and Software Papers

• Provide dataset provenance, licensing, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and known limitations.
• Report data splits (train/validation/test), cross-validation protocols, and measures to prevent leakage.
• Present performance with confidence intervals and subgroup analyses; avoid deployment claims beyond evidence.
• Supply model cards or equivalent documentation and code sufficient for independent verification (with environment details).

6.9 Systematic Search Transparency

• Include full search strategies for at least one major database (search strings, limits, dates) and state the date of last search.
• Describe screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias tools, and any automation used (with manual verification).

6.10 Data/Code/Materials Availability (Cross-reference)

• Provide repository links (with DOIs where possible), access conditions, and licenses.
• If access is restricted, explain why, outline how qualified researchers can request access, and provide a data dictionary and synthetic or example datasets when feasible.

6.11 Transparency for Deviations

• Any post-hoc analyses or deviations from the protocol/preregistration must be labeled as such and justified. Primary outcomes cannot be redefined after unblinding without disclosure.

6.12 Unit-Level and Subgroup Reporting

• Report the unit of analysis (cluster/individual) and any clustering adjustments.
• Pre-specify subgroups; exploratory subgroup findings must be labeled exploratory.

6.13 Software, Hardware, and Reproducible Environments

• Name software and package versions; share environment files (e.g., lockfiles, containers) when possible.
• For custom hardware or devices, document specifications, calibration, and firmware versions.

6.14 Accessibility of Reports

• Write plain-language summaries where appropriate. Expand acronyms on first use. Provide accessible formats for figures/tables to meet our accessibility standards.

6.15 Editorial Checks and Verification

• Manuscripts are screened for the correct guideline and checklist completeness.
• Editors may request raw data, analysis code, protocols, and image originals to verify compliance.
• High-risk or complex designs may undergo methodological or statistical review in addition to peer review.

6.16 Non-Compliance

• Incomplete or non-transparent reporting may lead to revise-and-resubmit, rejection, or—post-publication—correction, expression of concern, or retraction if the record is compromised.

6.17 Continuous Improvement

• Reporting requirements are periodically updated to reflect evolving community standards. Updates appear with version histories and dates on this policy page.

7.1 Purpose

• Transparent sharing of data, code, and research materials enables verification, reuse, and cumulative science. This policy sets publisher-wide requirements for availability, documentation, citation, and long-term preservation, with proportional safeguards for privacy, security, and intellectual property.

7.2 Core Requirements (Applies to All Empirical Articles)

• Data Availability Statement (DAS): Every article must include a clear statement describing what data exist, where they are stored, how they can be accessed, and any justified restrictions.
• Code Availability Statement: For any analysis, simulation, model, or figure created with software, provide access to executable code or workflows, or give a justified restriction.
• Materials/Protocol Availability: Reagents, instruments, questionnaires, custom hardware designs, and detailed protocols must be available or sufficiently documented for replication.
• Persistent Identifiers: Provide DOIs or other persistent identifiers for datasets, software, materials, and protocols whenever possible.
• Citation of Data & Software: Cite datasets and software in the reference list as first-class research objects, including creators, title, year, version, repository, and identifier.

7.3 Preferred Repositories and Persistence

• Deposit in trusted, non-proprietary repositories that issue persistent identifiers and support long-term preservation (e.g., discipline repositories, general repositories, institutional repositories).
• Repositories must allow public landing pages with metadata even when files are controlled-access.
• Avoid links that can rot (temporary file shares). Mirror critical artifacts when allowed.
• Large or complex data should include a readme and machine-readable metadata.

7.4 FAIR Principles

• Submissions must follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable):
• Findable: Rich metadata; persistent identifiers; referenced in the article.
• Accessible: Clear access terms, including controlled-access instructions where needed.
• Interoperable: Use open, community formats and vocabularies when available.
• Reusable: Include licenses and documentation that enable reuse with proper attribution.

7.5 Licensing

• Prefer open licenses that permit reuse with attribution (for example, CC BY for data/metadata where appropriate).
• If legal or ethical constraints prevent open licensing, state the exact restriction and provide the process for qualified access (e.g., data use agreements).
• Software should use a recognized open-source license when possible; otherwise specify precise usage rights.

7.6 Documentation & Provenance

• Provide a data dictionary, variable definitions, units, and coding schemes.
• Describe provenance from raw data to final analysis, including filtering, exclusion rules, and transformations.
• Include a workflow diagram or step list sufficient for an independent researcher to repeat the pipeline.

7.7 Computational Reproducibility

• Name software, packages, and versions; state operating system and key dependencies.
• Share environment files (for example, lockfiles or container manifests).
• For randomized procedures, report seeds and initialization details.
• Provide minimal runnable examples demonstrating that the main analyses reproduce key tables and figures.

7.8 Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs)

• Identify critical reagents and resources with RRIDs when available (cell lines, antibodies, organisms, software).
• For custom materials, provide stable catalog information, fabrication files, or bill-of-materials so others can obtain or build equivalents.

7.9 Sensitive, Personal, or Restricted Data

• When data cannot be openly shared due to privacy, safety, legal, or contractual limits, provide:
  • a) A public metadata record;
  • b) A lawful, proportionate access route (e.g., controlled-access repository or data enclave);
  • c) A clear justification for restrictions;
  • d) Any required approvals or data use agreements.
• De-identify to accepted standards; avoid re-identification risks. Summaries or synthetic datasets may be provided to enhance transparency without exposing individuals.

7.10 Security-Sensitive and Dual-Use Content

• For materials or code that could enable harm, provide mitigated sharing (for example, redacted methods, staged release after institutional review, or access for qualified researchers under oversight).
• Editors may require additional safeguards or modify dissemination to reduce misuse risk while preserving the scholarly record.

7.11 Embargoes

• Short, time-limited embargoes may be allowed to align with registration or commercialization timelines. Embargo length and rationale must be stated in the DAS and lifted automatically when the period ends.

7.12 Registered Reports and Confirmatory Analyses

• For registered reports or preregistered studies, share time-stamped protocols and analysis plans. Deviations must be labeled and justified in the manuscript and documentation.

7.13 Quality Checks and Integrity

• Provide original, unprocessed data files and image sources on request for verification.
• We screen for internal consistency (for example, file hashes, row/column counts, figure-data alignment) and may request clarifications or corrections before acceptance.

7.14 Third-Party and Licensed Data

• When using third-party data, confirm that sharing is permitted. If redistribution is prohibited, the DAS must explain how others can obtain the data independently under equivalent terms.
• State any usage restrictions, embargoes, or attribution requirements.

7.15 Code Review and Executability

• Code must run from clean checkout with instructions. Provide a README with setup steps, expected runtime, and how to reproduce key results.
• Where feasible, include automated tests or checks that validate major outputs.

7.16 Large-Scale, Streaming, or Dynamic Data

• For evolving datasets, provide a versioned snapshot used for the article with a unique identifier and date.
• Describe how to retrieve the same snapshot in the future and how updates differ.

7.17 Negative and Null Results, Replications, and Reanalyses

• We welcome well-powered replications, reanalyses, and negative or null results. Data and code should enable others to verify conclusions even when results are not positive.

7.18 Attribution and Credit

• Cite data creators and software authors. Include contributor roles (for example, data curation, software) in the CRediT statement.
• Where repositories support credit systems (such as citation tracking), ensure metadata is complete to recognize contributors.

7.19 Publisher Audits and Requests

• Editors may request data, code, materials, or logs during review or post-publication for verification.
• Failure to provide promised materials without compelling justification may lead to correction, expression of concern, or retraction to protect the record.

7.20 Exceptions and Justifications

• Exceptions are limited to cases where sharing would violate law, ethics, safety, or binding contracts. Authors must provide a clear, written justification and a route for bona fide researchers to request access where feasible.

7.21 Minimal Templates (for Articles)

• Data Availability Statement (model):
  • “The dataset generated and analyzed in this study is available in a trusted repository with persistent identifier. Access is open under an attribution license. Any personal data were removed or anonymized before sharing.”
• Code Availability Statement (model):
  • “All analysis code and environment files required to reproduce the results are available in a trusted repository with a persistent identifier. Instructions to regenerate tables and figures are included.”
• Materials/Protocol Availability (model):
  • “Key materials and protocols are described in detail and available through standard suppliers or repositories. Custom hardware designs and questionnaires are provided with documentation.”

7.22 Versioning and Change Logs

• Data, code, and materials should carry version numbers and change logs. The article should reference the exact versions used for the published results.

7.23 Long-Term Preservation

• Choose repositories and file formats that support long-term access. Critical artifacts should be preserved beyond the publication date, with redundancy to guard against loss.

7.24 Enforcement and Sanctions

• Misrepresentation of availability, sharing of manipulated files, or failure to honor stated access routes may result in rejection, correction, expression of concern, retraction, and notification of institutions or funders when appropriate.

8.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy safeguards the accuracy of all visual and audiovisual materials in published content: scientific images, charts, diagrams, artwork, audio, video, animations, and interactive media. It applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and production staff across all journals we publish.

8.2 First Principles

• Show the data, do not reshape the truth. Visual changes must never mislead or alter scientific meaning.
• Transparency by default. Any enhancement or composition must be disclosed in the figure legend or Methods.
• Verifiability. Originals and processing steps must be available for editorial inspection upon request.

8.3 Acceptable Global Adjustments (with disclosure)

• Uniform, non-selective adjustments are allowed if they do not hide, introduce, or exaggerate features:
• Brightness, contrast, and gamma applied to the entire image.
• Uniform white balance, exposure, or color-space conversions.
• Linear cropping that does not remove essential context (e.g., scale bars, controls).
• Disclosure: “Global brightness/contrast adjustments applied; no pixel-level alterations.”

8.4 Prohibited Manipulations

• Selective enhancement, suppression, or removal of features (e.g., erasing bands, adding spots, cloning backgrounds).
• Splicing lanes or fields without clear demarcation lines and labeling.
• Nonlinear intensity adjustments that distort relative differences without disclosure.
• Artificial smoothing/denoising that removes meaningful signal or artifacts critical for interpretation.
• AI-based inpainting or generative fills that fabricate data elements.
• Violations may trigger rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

8.5 Composites and Splices (Permitted with strict labeling)

• Show borders between panels/lanes/fields with clear separating lines.
• Label each segment (e.g., “lane 1–4 from gel A; lane 5–7 from gel B”).
• Provide acquisition dates/instruments if multiple sessions were combined.
• State any re-ordering of lanes or fields.

8.6 Source Data and Provenance

• For every figure derived from empirical data, authors must retain and, on request, provide:
• Raw, unprocessed image files (native formats, e.g., .lif, .czi, .nd2; DICOM for radiology).
• Acquisition metadata (instrument, objective, numerical aperture, voxel size/pixel scale, exposure, filters).
• Processing logs or stepwise description sufficient to reproduce the final figure.
• Minimum retention: consistent with field norms and legal/ethical requirements.

8.7 Scale, Units, and Calibration

• Include scale bars or explicit magnification and units.
• Do not rely on relative magnification descriptions alone.
• Report calibration methods for imaging systems and measurement devices.

8.8 Color, False Color, and Perceptual Integrity

• Use color maps that preserve ordinal/interval relationships; avoid misleading palettes that create false boundaries.
• Identify false-color or pseudocolor images and specify channel mapping.
• Multi-channel images must state dyes/fluorophores, emission/ excitation settings, and channel order.

8.9 Specific Modalities — Minimum Standards

• Gels/Blots: Show full-length blots or provide uncropped source images as supplements; mark reused lanes; avoid background obliteration.
• Microscopy: Report optical setup, z-stacks, deconvolution, projection type; disclose stitching/tiling.
• Flow Cytometry: Provide gating strategy, compensation, controls, event counts; show axis scales consistently.
• Spectra/Chromatograms: Include axis units, baselines, smoothing parameters; avoid baseline subtraction without disclosure.
• Radiology/Clinical: Anonymize DICOM headers; disclose window/level settings if diagnostically relevant.
• Maps/Geospatial: Name coordinate reference systems, data sources, and spatial resolution; indicate any generalization or masking for privacy.

8.10 Charts and Statistical Graphics

• Axes must have units, scales, and zero baselines where appropriate.
• Avoid truncated axes that distort effect size; if truncation is necessary, indicate clearly.
• Show individual data points or distribution summaries (e.g., box/violin plots) whenever feasible; avoid deceptive 3D embellishments.
• Report sample sizes (n) and measures of dispersion (SD/SE/CI) in legends or captions.

8.11 Figure Assembly and Layout

• Panels labeled consistently (A, B, C…); legends explain each panel.
• Do not duplicate the same image in multiple panels to represent different conditions.
• Avoid excessive compression artifacts; submit publication-quality resolution (typically ≥300 dpi for raster images at final size).

8.12 Audio, Video, and Animation

• State frame rate, resolution, and any edits (speed changes, cuts, stabilization).
• Do not add or remove sounds or visual events that change interpretation.
• Provide closed captions or transcripts when feasible; anonymize voices and faces where required.

8.13 Accessibility of Visuals

• Provide alt text or concise, descriptive captions that convey the scientific message.
• Ensure sufficient contrast ratios for text and critical features.
• Avoid color-only encodings; use patterns or markers to differentiate series.

8.14 Image Integrity Screening (Publisher)

• Editorial staff may use automated tools to identify:
• Duplications, splices, contrast anomalies, and cloning artifacts.
• Inconsistent noise patterns or compression signatures.
• Findings trigger human expert review; automated flags never determine outcomes alone.

8.15 Disclosure Templates (for authors)

• Image Processing Statement: “Only uniform, global adjustments (brightness/contrast) were applied. No selective editing or data removal occurred. Composite boundaries are marked; full-length blots provided in Supplementary Figures S1–S3.”
• Figure Legend Minimums: source of data; acquisition instrument/settings; units/scale; n per group; statistical tests; definitions of symbols and error bars.

8.16 Third-Party and Stock Visuals

• Scientific illustrations or icons must not imply empirical measurements.
• Obtain and document licenses/permissions.
• Acknowledge illustrators/designers; avoid misleading photorealistic renderings for hypothetical mechanisms.

8.17 Privacy and Identifiability

• Remove direct identifiers from clinical images or obtain explicit consent for publication.
• For sensitive locations (e.g., endangered species habitats, refugee settlements), consider obfuscation or coordinate generalization and state the method.

8.18 Non-Compliance and Remedial Actions

• Pre-publication: Request originals, revisions, or withdraw the manuscript.
• Post-publication: Publish corrections, image replacements with clear notes, expressions of concern, or retractions if conclusions are undermined.
• Notify institutions/funders when appropriate; apply submission bans for repeated or egregious violations.

9.1 Purpose and Scope

• This section defines how we run peer review across all journals we publish. It covers editor responsibilities, reviewer selection and conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, decision criteria, revisions, appeals, special issues, and post-publication dialogue. The goal is rigorous, fair, and timely assessment that protects the scholarly record.

9.2 Peer-Review Models (Declared per Journal)

Each journal publicly states its model; options we support:

• Double-anonymized (authors and reviewers blinded).
• Single-anonymized (reviewers blinded; editors know identities).
• Open review (identities and/or reports public).
• Transparent review (anonymous reports published with the article).
• Registered Reports (peer review of study design before results).
• Any departures from a journal’s default model must be disclosed to authors in advance.

9.3 Editorial Roles and Safeguards

• Handling editor authority: Assigned editors—free of conflicts—oversee peer review and make recommendations/decisions under the journal’s policies.
• Independence: Business, marketing, and sponsors have no role in editorial decisions.
• Editor-authored submissions: Processed by an independent editor via a firewalled workflow; the author-editor has no system access to discussions or reviewer identities.
• Documentation: Key actions (assignment, invitations, decisions) are logged for audit.

9.4 Manuscript Screening (Pre-Review)

Every submission is checked for:

• Scope and reporting fit (see Sections 5–8).
• Ethics: IRB/animal approvals, trial registration, permits, DURC/biosafety where relevant.
• Integrity: plagiarism/duplicate checks, figure screening, and basic statistical/ methods sanity checks.
• Editors may desk-reject with constructive reasons when manuscripts clearly do not meet standards.

9.5 Reviewer Selection

• Expertise: Reviewers are chosen for subject, methodological, and statistical expertise; diversity of perspectives is encouraged.
• Conflicts: We avoid reviewers with recent collaboration, shared affiliations or grants, personal relationships, or direct competition. Declared COIs are logged; conflicted reviewers are not used.
• Availability and timeliness: Invitations specify deadlines and expectations.
• Identity verification: We take steps to validate reviewer identities and email domains; suspicious nominations are independently verified.

9.6 Co-Reviewing and Mentored Review

• Invited reviewers may involve a named junior colleague for training only with prior editor approval and with full confidentiality and COI checks. The invited reviewer remains responsible for the report. Co-reviewer names are shared with the editor and, in open/transparent models, acknowledged with consent.

9.7 Reviewer Responsibilities and Conduct

Reviewers agree to:

• Confidentiality: Do not share or reuse manuscript content; delete files after review.
• Objectivity and civility: Critique methods and evidence, not people; avoid derogatory language.
• Substantiation: Support critiques with citations or concrete methodological rationale.
• No use of unpublished information for personal benefit.
• AI tools: Follow Section 3; do not upload confidential content to external tools lacking approved safeguards; the review must reflect the reviewer’s own judgment.
• Timeliness: Deliver reports on time or decline promptly.

9.8 Reviewer Report Content (Minimums)

• Summary of key findings and claims.
• Methodological evaluation (design, analysis, statistics, reproducibility).
• Ethics and transparency checks (approvals, consent, data/code availability, image integrity).
• Specific, actionable recommendations for improvement.
• Confidential note to editor (optional) separate from comments to authors.

9.9 Decision Criteria and Taxonomy

Decisions are grounded in methodological rigor, clarity, ethics compliance, and contribution to the field. Standard decisions:

• Reject (desk or after review).
• Major revision.
• Minor revision.
• Accept.

Editors provide clear rationales; where reviewer advice diverges, editors synthesize the case and justify the decision.

9.10 Revision Process

• Authors must include a point-by-point response mapping revisions to reviewer/editor comments, with tracked-changes or marked-up files.
• Substantive methodological changes require updated analyses and, when needed, additional review or statistical assessment.
• New experiments should be justified by their necessity to address validity, not by novelty alone.

9.11 Appeals and Complaints (Process)

• Appeals must provide a concise, evidence-based rebuttal addressing specific points of error or misunderstanding; an independent editor reviews the appeal.
• Complaints about conduct, bias, or process are acknowledged within set timelines and handled under our conflict and integrity procedures. Frivolous or repetitive appeals may be declined with reasons.

9.12 Special Issues, Guest Editors, and Collections

• Guest editors sign COI and independence statements and follow the same reviewer-selection standards.
• The journal’s Editor-in-Chief or a designate provides oversight, including random audits of reviewer choices and decisions.
• Red flags (citation cartels, anomalous acceptance patterns, paper-mill indicators) trigger intervention, up to cancellation of submissions or re-review.

9.13 Statistical and Methods Review

• For complex or high-stakes analyses, editors may seek specialist review (statistics, data science, qualitative methods, ethics).
• Where appropriate, authors provide analysis code, data samples, and image originals to enable verification.

9.14 Anonymity, Transparency, and Credit

• The default anonymity follows the journal’s model.
• With consent and where policy allows, we may publish review reports, decision letters, and author rebuttals.
• We can issue reviewer recognition (certificates, ORCID credit) without compromising confidentiality when anonymity is required.

9.15 Transfer and Portable Peer Review

• With author consent, editors may transfer manuscripts (with reviews) to another journal within our portfolio when the work is sound but a better scope fit exists.
• We may accept portable peer review reports from trusted partners; transferred reports are verified for integrity and reviewed for fit.

9.16 Handling Suspected Misconduct During Review

• Signals (plagiarism, fabricated data, image manipulation, identity fraud, peer-review manipulation) prompt editorial inquiry and, if needed, contact with institutions or funders.
• Editorial actions prioritize safeguarding the record and may include hold, reject, or post-publication measures per our integrity policy.

9.17 Timelines and Communication

• Journals display typical time to first decision and time to publication with date ranges and methods.
• Authors receive status updates at key stages (sent to review, reviews received, decision pending).
• Significant delays are communicated with revised estimates or alternative handling (e.g., reassignment).

9.18 Confidentiality Boundaries

• Identities of reviewers are kept confidential unless an open/transparent model or explicit consent applies.
• Manuscript content is confidential; it must not be shared outside the editorial process or used for competitive advantage.

9.19 Editorial Research Use of Manuscripts

• Unpublished submissions are not used by editors or reviewers for their own research without written author permission and after publication or formal withdrawal.

9.20 Record-Keeping and Audit

• Systems retain invitation logs, COI statements, decision letters, and timelines for a defined retention period.
• Random audits assess adherence to policy (e.g., conflicts management, reviewer diversity, turnaround). Findings inform process improvement.

9.21 Sanctions for Reviewer or Editor Misconduct

• Possible actions include removal from the reviewer pool or editorial board, notification to institutions, and—where appropriate—public notes of correction to maintain trust in the process.

9.22 Post-Publication Dialogue

• We welcome comments, letters, and scholarly rebuttals. Substantive critiques are evaluated fairly and may lead to corrections or other actions. Civility and evidence standards apply.

9.23 Use of Technology in Editorial Work

• Tools for plagiarism detection, image integrity screening, reference checking, and workflow support may be employed, with human editorial judgment making final decisions (see Section 3 on AI use).

9.24 Accessibility and Inclusion in Peer Review

• Editors strive for inclusive reviewer pools across geography, gender, career stage, and institution type.
• Reasonable accommodations are provided for reviewers or authors with accessibility needs (extended deadlines, accessible document formats).

9.25 Final Acceptance to Production Handoff

• Before acceptance, editors verify ethics statements, COI/Funding statements, reporting checklists, DAS/Code availability, and image/source-data readiness.
• Accepted manuscripts proceed to production with clear metadata, licensing, and any transparency notes (e.g., published peer-review files) attached.

10.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy protects the integrity of the scholarly record by defining research and publication misconduct, our investigation procedures, and the editorial actions we may take before or after publication. It applies to authors, editors, reviewers, and all publisher staff across our journals.

10.2 Definitions (Non-Exhaustive)

• Fabrication: Making up data, results, images, or citations.
• Falsification: Manipulating data, images, methods, or materials such that the research is misrepresented.
• Plagiarism: Presenting another’s work, ideas, or words without proper credit; includes self-plagiarism/duplicate publication when prior work is reused without disclosure.
• Image manipulation: Selective enhancement, splicing, cloning, or inpainting that changes meaning without disclosure (see Section 8).
• Authorship misconduct: Ghost, guest/gift, or purchased authorship; forged approvals; undisclosed professional writers.
• Peer-review manipulation: Fake reviewer identities, reviewer suggestion fraud, coercive citation, or undisclosed use of AI tools to write reviews.
• Citation manipulation: Inappropriate self-citation or citation cartels intended to game metrics.
• Paper mill activity: Systematic production or sale of fabricated or manipulated manuscripts or authorship slots.
• Ethics non-compliance: Absent or misrepresented IRB/IACUC approvals, consent, permits, trial registration, or data-protection safeguards.
• Undeclared conflicts of interest: Material financial or non-financial interests not disclosed at submission or publication.

10.3 Principles for Handling Concerns

• Fair process: We evaluate allegations objectively, without presumption of guilt.
• Proportionality: Actions match the severity and impact on the record.
• Documented reasoning: We keep internal decision records and provide clear public notices when the record changes.
• Independence: Business and sponsorship do not influence integrity decisions.
• Timeliness: We acknowledge credible reports promptly and aim to conclude investigations within reasonable, stated timelines.

10.4 How Concerns May Arise

• Editorial checks (plagiarism, figure screening, statistical sanity checks).
• Reviewer, reader, or whistleblower reports (anonymous reports accepted with sufficient detail).
• Post-publication commentary or replication attempts.
• Notifications from institutions, funders, or other journals.

10.5 Intake and Triage

• Acknowledge receipt to the reporter (when contactable).
• Preliminary review by an integrity editor to assess scope, plausibility, and risk.
• Hold editorial processing when necessary (e.g., suspend peer review or acceptance).
• Conflict check and assignment to a handling editor uninvolved with the work.

10.6 Evidence Gathering

• Request original data, images, code, protocols, and approvals from authors.
• Conduct similarity checks and image forensics; compare figures across versions and venues.
• Where relevant, contact institutions, funders, ethics committees, or data repositories for verification.
• Maintain the chain of custody for files and logs used in decisions.

10.7 Author Engagement

• Share the specific concerns with the corresponding author (and, where appropriate, all authors).
• Provide a response window proportionate to the case; extensions considered with justification.
• Require author-signed statements for factual clarifications; disagreements are documented.

10.8 Possible Outcomes (Pre-Publication)

• Proceed after clarification or minor correction.
• Revise with required changes (e.g., corrected figures, fuller disclosures).
• Reject for integrity reasons, with reasons recorded.
• Refer to institutions or funders for formal investigation when warranted.

10.9 Possible Outcomes (Post-Publication)

• Editor’s Note / Addendum: Minor clarifications that do not alter conclusions.
• Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum): Fixes factual or production errors that affect but do not invalidate findings.
• Author Correction vs. Publisher Correction: Labeled accordingly; both link bidirectionally to the Version of Record.
• Expression of Concern (EoC): Public notice when serious doubts exist but an investigation is ongoing or evidence is inconclusive.
• Retraction: Public notice that the article’s findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error (e.g., pervasive analytical flaws).
• Retraction and Replacement: In rare cases of honest error where corrected results are valid and independently verified, a replacement article may be issued with full provenance.
• Withdrawal (Early/Online First): For items not yet assigned to an issue when fundamental issues are identified.
• Removal (Exceptional): Used only for legal reasons (e.g., court orders, severe defamation, privacy violations, or serious public health risk). A tombstone notice remains with reasons.

10.10 Content of Public Notices

• All public notices (corrections, EoCs, retractions, removals) are:
• Openly accessible and permanently linked to the affected article (and vice versa).
• Transparent: State who issues the notice, the reasons, which parts are affected, and whether conclusions are impacted.
• Traceable: Include dates, DOIs, and version history.
• Neutral in tone: Fact-focused, avoiding defamatory language.

10.11 Retraction Practice Details

• Who retracts: Preferably all authors; if not feasible or if authors disagree, the editor/publisher may retract to protect the record.
• Availability: The original article remains online with a clear watermark or header stating “Retracted,” preserving bibliographic metadata.
• Indexing: We notify indexing services and repositories; metadata reflects the retracted status.
• Authorship and responsibility: Notices indicate whether misconduct was determined and, if known, by whom (without unnecessary personal data).
• Citations: We discourage uncritical citation of retracted work and encourage citing the retraction notice when discussing the case.

10.12 Paper Mills, Fraud Rings, and Systemic Irregularities

• Use anomaly detection (e.g., unusual author networks, stock images, identical phrases, reference patterns).
• Apply portfolio-wide checks and, where needed, audits of special issues and guest-edited collections.
• Suspend pipelines and invalidate compromised peer review; re-review by independent experts.
• Coordinate with other journals and institutions where appropriate.

10.13 Peer-Review Integrity

• Validate reviewer identities and contact details; scrutinize author-nominated reviewers.
• Prohibit reviewers from delegating without prior approval (see Section 9).
• Address coercive citation or unprofessional conduct with warnings, removal from reviewer pools, or institutional notification.

10.14 Undeclared or Disputed Conflicts of Interest

• Publish addenda or corrections to disclose previously omitted conflicts when material.
• If nondisclosure likely biased design, analysis, or interpretation, escalate to EoC or retraction.

10.15 Appeals of Integrity Decisions

• Authors may appeal by submitting new evidence or pointing to procedural error.
• Appeals are reviewed by an independent editor or committee not involved in the original decision.
• Repeated or unsupported appeals may be declined with reasons recorded.

10.16 Record-Keeping and Retention

• Retain integrity-related correspondence, reports, and evidence for a defined period consistent with legal and ethical requirements.
• Maintain an internal register of corrections, EoCs, retractions, and removals for audit and transparency.

10.17 Communication and Confidentiality

• We protect the identity of whistleblowers where lawful and feasible.
• We may share necessary information with institutions, funders, or regulators to facilitate investigations, observing privacy and due process.

10.18 Sanctions

• For confirmed misconduct: rejection of current submissions, submission bans for a defined period, editorial board removal, reviewer debarment, and institutional notification.
• For guest editors: removal from roles, annulment of compromised issues, and public editorial notes where appropriate.

10.19 Legal and Ethical Considerations

• Integrity actions observe applicable laws (defamation, privacy, data protection, export controls).
• We avoid statements of fault beyond the evidence; when legal constraints limit disclosure, we state that details are withheld for legal reasons.

10.20 Continuous Improvement

• We periodically review and update procedures in light of community standards, case analyses, and stakeholder feedback.
• Policy pages display version histories and last-updated dates; substantive changes are communicated across journal sites.

11.1 Purpose and Scope

• This section defines our publisher-wide policies on preprints, community discussion after publication, and version control for scholarly works. It applies to all journals we publish and to all article types unless a journal explicitly states a narrower policy.

11.2 Preprint-Friendly Policy

• Not prior publication. Posting a manuscript to a recognized preprint server does not count as prior publication and will not prejudice editorial assessment.
• Allowed servers. Authors may post to discipline-appropriate, non-commercial or community servers (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv/medRxiv, SocArXiv, EarthArXiv, OSF Preprints, institutional repositories).
• What may be posted. The author’s original manuscript (submitted version) or accepted manuscript (post-peer-review, pre-typesetting) may be posted per journal-specific license terms (see Section 12).
• Embargoes. We do not require preprint embargoes. If a journal participates in media embargo programs, authors should coordinate press releases to avoid confusion (see 11.12).

11.3 Disclosure at Submission

Authors must:

• Indicate the preprint DOI/URL at submission.
• Disclose any public commentary or reviews the preprint has received.
• Ensure that the preprint metadata lists the current submission status where the server supports this.

11.4 Preprint Citation and Priority

• Citing preprints. Preprints are citable research objects. Cite them like articles, including version/date and persistent identifier.
• Priority claims. Preprint timestamps establish priority of discovery; publication in our journals establishes the version of record (VoR).

11.5 Screening & Ethics for Preprinted Work

• All ethical and integrity requirements apply regardless of preprint status (Sections 5–10).
• For high-risk topics (e.g., clinical claims, dual-use), editors may request clarifications about the preprint’s dissemination and any public impacts already observed.

11.6 Linking Preprints to the Version of Record

• On publication, authors should update the preprint record to link to the VoR DOI and include the recommended citation.
• Where servers support “published” badges or automatic back-linking, we facilitate this.
• If the accepted manuscript is deposited, include the VoR link and license notice required by the journal.

11.7 Accepted Manuscripts (AAMs) and Self-Archiving

• Authors may deposit the AAM in repositories permitted by the journal’s license (Section 12), with clear labeling: “Author accepted manuscript; not the final typeset version.”
• Include the VoR DOI upon publication and any required publisher statement.

11.8 Community Review and Overlay Models

• We welcome post-publication peer commentary, overlays, and independent replications that engage constructively with published work.
• Journals may pilot overlay review (linking external reviews to VoR). External reviews must disclose identities or follow the host’s transparency standards and adhere to our conduct policy (11.13).

11.9 Post-Publication Comments, Letters, and Replies

• Channels. We accept formal Letters to the Editor, moderated comments, or registered scholarly replies.
• Standards. Submissions must be evidence-based, specific, civil, and concise. Personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims are rejected.
• Timelines. Authors of the target article are invited to reply; both pieces may be peer-reviewed proportionally to claims made.
• Archiving. Accepted letters/replies receive DOIs and are permanently linked to the VoR.

11.10 Corrections Triggered by Post-Publication Review

• Substantive, credible issues raised in public forums or letters are investigated under Section 10.
• Outcomes include corrections, editor’s notes, expressions of concern, or retractions, with public, permanent notices.

11.11 Versioning Policy (All Article Types)

• Each article has exactly one Version of Record (VoR) with a DOI.
• Earlier public versions (preprint, AAM) should link forward to the VoR; later updates are handled through formal notices (corrections/addenda) or retraction and replacement where appropriate.
• For living resources (e.g., datasets, software), see Section 7 for versioned identifiers and changelogs.

11.12 Media, Press, and Embargoes

• Authors may discuss preprints with the media using careful, non-promotional language that reflects uncertainty.
• If a journal or study is under an embargo, coordinate press activity with the editorial office. Embargoes do not restrict preprint posting, but press releases should avoid overstating unreviewed findings.

11.13 Community Conduct & Moderation

• Public discussion spaces hosted by the publisher are moderated for civility, relevance, and privacy compliance.
• Prohibited: harassment, doxxing, disclosure of confidential peer-review content, or discriminatory language.
• Moderation actions range from content removal to account suspension; serious cases may be escalated under Section 10.

11.14 Transparency of Review Histories

• Journals may offer transparent peer review: publishing anonymized review reports, decision letters, and author rebuttals alongside the VoR with author/reviewer consent.
• Metadata will indicate whether transparency applies and which documents are included.

11.15 Open Annotation and Third-Party Platforms

• We enable or respect standards-based annotation (e.g., via compatible web annotation services) where feasible.
• Authors and readers should distinguish speculation from evidence; editors may issue notes when public annotations reveal substantive concerns.

11.16 Simultaneous Submissions & Duplicate Records

• Preprints are not simultaneous submissions. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently is prohibited unless a coordinated multi-journal agreement exists.
• Duplicate postings of near-identical content across servers should be avoided; if necessary, cross-link and explain differences.

11.17 Data, Code, and Materials Alignment

• When a preprint advertises open data/code, the published article must include functioning links and the same or improved availability unless legal/ethical constraints intervene. Any restriction changes must be explained in the VoR (see Section 7).

11.18 Author Name and Metadata Consistency

• Keep author names, ORCID iDs, titles, and abstracts consistent across preprint, AAM, and VoR where possible. If changes are needed (e.g., clarifications, name updates), propagate updates and link all versions clearly.

11.19 Rapid Responses During Public Health or Safety Events

• For urgent topics, editors may expedite clarifications or risk-mitigated updates and coordinate with repositories to highlight changes. Speed never overrides accuracy, ethics, or safety.

11.20 Record-Keeping and Discoverability

• Preprint DOIs/URLs and post-publication discussion items are captured in article metadata to improve indexing and discovery.
• We encourage authors to maintain current links and to notify editorial offices of major preprint revisions that materially affect interpretation.

12.1 Purpose

• This section defines how authors keep or transfer rights, which open access (OA) options we offer, what licenses apply to articles, data, code, and figures, and how self-archiving and reuse work across our portfolio. It applies to all journals we publish.

12.2 Our Open Access Models

• Gold OA (default for OA journals): The Version of Record (VoR) is immediately open on the journal site under a Creative Commons license chosen by the author (see 12.6).
• Hybrid OA (for hybrid journals): Authors may choose OA on an article-by-article basis; non-OA content remains accessible per the journal’s access model.
• Green OA (self-archiving): Authors may deposit the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) in permitted repositories with required notices and links (12.9).
• Transformative/Read-and-Publish agreements: When applicable, eligible corresponding authors may publish OA under institutional deals without individual APC payment (12.7).

12.3 Who Owns What

• Author rights: Unless a specific transfer is required by a journal, authors typically retain copyright and grant the publisher a license to publish.
• Publisher rights: We obtain the non-exclusive rights needed to publish, disseminate, index, and preserve the work, and to manage updates to the scholarly record (corrections, retractions).
• Moral rights: Authors retain moral rights (right of attribution; integrity of the work) where recognized.

12.4 Article Types and Rights

• Research Articles, Reviews, Methods: Eligible for OA licensing; authors select among supported CC licenses.
• Editorials, News, Front Matter: License may differ (often more restrictive); each journal states its policy on the article page.
• Third-party content within articles: May carry different licenses or permissions; see 12.13.

12.5 Permitted Reuse at a Glance (Articles)

• CC BY 4.0: Free reuse, distribution, adaptation, and commercial use with attribution and link to license; indicate changes.
• CC BY-NC 4.0: Same as above without commercial use.
• CC BY-NC-ND 4.0: Redistribution allowed, no derivatives, no commercial use.
• For any CC license, reusers must preserve attribution, the license notice, and mark changes.
• We encourage CC BY for maximal interoperability with funder mandates and text-and-data mining (TDM).

12.6 License Selection (Articles)

• Authors choose the license during publication. Where a funder mandates a specific license (e.g., Plan S requires CC BY in most cases), we will honor that mandate.
• The chosen license is displayed on the article landing page and the PDF. License changes post-publication are rare and, if granted, require a public note.

12.7 Article Processing Charges (APCs) and Waivers

• APCs (if any) are transparent and listed on journal pages with currency and applicable taxes.
• Waivers/discounts are available based on need or country income classifications; criteria and application steps are public.
• Transformative agreements may cover APCs for eligible authors; verification occurs during submission.

12.8 Rights Retention and Funder Policies

• We support rights-retention statements where required by funders.
• Authors may include a funder-approved statement in the submission cover letter and acknowledgments; we accommodate repository deposition terms (e.g., immediate OA with CC BY).

12.9 Self-Archiving (Green OA)

• Preprint (submitted manuscript): May be posted anytime on recognized servers.
• AAM (post-peer review, pre-typeset): May be deposited in institutional or subject repositories upon acceptance unless a specific journal states an embargo; when deposited:
• Add a clear label: “Author Accepted Manuscript.”
• Include the citation to the VoR and the VoR DOI on publication.
• Maintain the same license notice stated by the journal for AAMs.
• VoR: Reuse and redistribution are governed strictly by the article’s OA license and journal policies.

12.10 Data, Code, and Materials Licensing (Cross-ref Section 7)

Data and metadata: Prefer CC BY or CC0 where legally appropriate; state any access restrictions (privacy, security, contractual).

Software/code: Prefer OSI-approved licenses (e.g., MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0).

Materials/protocols: Provide terms that allow replication; if restricted (MTAs, safety), state the access route.

12.11 Text-and-Data Mining (TDM)

• TDM of OA content is permitted under the article’s license.
• Robots exclusion (robots.txt) may manage crawl rate, not legal permission. Respect rate limits and platform stability.
• Non-OA content may require permission or a separate license; contact us for TDM access options.

12.12 Commercial Use

• CC BY permits commercial use with attribution.
• CC BY-NC / CC BY-NC-ND prohibit commercial reuse without separate permission.
• “Commercial” includes uses primarily intended for commercial advantage or monetary compensation (e.g., paid coursepacks, for-profit platforms).

12.13 Third-Party Content within Articles

• Authors must secure permissions for any third-party material not covered by fair use/fair dealing or an open license compatible with the article’s license.
• Provide credit lines that specify the rights holder and license/permission.
• Content under restrictive permissions is excluded from the article’s CC license; mark it clearly (e.g., “© 2025 {Rightsholder}. Used with permission; not CC-licensed”).

12.14 Figures, Tables, and Graphical Abstracts

• Original figures and tables created by the authors are licensed under the article’s license unless stated otherwise.
• Reused figures/tables from other sources must have compatible licenses or explicit permission; include required attributions and any “NoDerivatives” constraints.

12.15 Translations and Adaptations

• Allowed per the article’s license (e.g., CC BY allows translations/adaptations with attribution and change notices).
• Translations must faithfully represent the original; include a note linking to the VoR and stating that the translation is unofficial unless the publisher approves and accredits it.

12.16 Author Warranties and Responsibilities

By submitting, authors warrant that:

• The work is original, does not infringe rights, and all necessary permissions are obtained.
• All authors have approved the manuscript and agree to the chosen license.
• Third-party content is properly credited and licensed for the intended use.
• Any confidential, personal, or sensitive data are handled lawfully (see Section 5 and Section 7).

12.17 Publisher Responsibilities

• Display the license clearly on the article landing page and PDF.
• Provide permanent identifiers (DOIs) and maintain link integrity.
• Preserve the record via our archiving partners (see Section 13).
• Issue and link public notices (corrections, retractions) without altering the historical record of licenses already granted.

12.18 Corrections, Retractions, and Licensing

• Corrections and editorial notes inherit the license of the underlying article unless stated otherwise.
• Retracted articles remain accessible with clear labeling; the original license notice is retained, but readers must not rely on retracted content for scientific claims.

12.19 Reuse Requests and Permissions Service

• For uses beyond the scope of the article’s license (e.g., commercial reuse of CC BY-NC content; reuse of non-CC third-party material), contact our permissions channel.
• We follow community best practices (e.g., STM Permissions Guidelines) to enable timely, fair reuse.

12.20 Machine-Readable Licensing & Metadata

• Licenses are embedded in article HTML/PDF/metadata to support discovery, harvesting, and compliance checks (e.g., Crossref, repositories, funders).
• We expose license URIs, funder identifiers, and rights statements in standard schemas.

12.21 Embargoes (If Applicable)

• Embargoes, when used by a particular journal, are time-limited and listed on that journal’s policy page.
• Embargoes do not apply to preprints unless specified by a venue or funder communication policy.

12.22 Policy for Images/Media of Identifiable Persons

• Where a figure includes an identifiable person, authors must provide consent for publication that covers OA dissemination and downstream reuse consistent with the article’s license.

12.23 Enforcement and Misuse

• Misrepresentation of licensing terms, removal of attribution/license notices, or unauthorized commercial reuse may prompt takedown requests, legal action where necessary, and/or platform restrictions.

12.24 How to Cite and Attribute

• Cite the VoR with DOI. For adaptations/translations, add: “Adapted from/Translated from ‘{Title}’, © Authors {Year}, licensed under {CC license}; changes were made.”
• For third-party materials with different rights, follow the credit line instructions precisely.

12.25 Continuous Improvement

• We review OA and licensing policies periodically to reflect evolving funder requirements, community practices, and legal standards. Changes are versioned with last-updated dates on this page.

13.1 Purpose

• We preserve the scholarly record so that articles, metadata, and associated research objects remain discoverable, citable, and readable in the long term—even if platforms, file formats, or ownership change.

13.2 Preservation Layers (Defense in Depth)

We use multiple, independent layers:

• Primary platform with routine backups and off-site replication.
• Dark archives (e.g., community preservation networks) to ensure content can be served if our platform becomes unavailable.
• Third-party preservation services to guard against technical or organizational failure.
• Repository deposits and indexing to maintain discoverability.

13.3 Content in Scope

Preserved content includes:

• The Version of Record (VoR): JATS XML (or equivalent), PDF/PDF-A, and, where applicable, EPUB.
• Article assets: figures, tables, multimedia, supplementary materials, source data packages, peer-review files (if published), graphical abstracts.
• Front matter and back matter: editorials, corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, and tombstone pages.
• Metadata: DOIs, references, ORCID iDs, funder information, institutional identifiers (e.g., ROR), license URIs, version/provenance data.

13.4 File and Format Standards

• Master formats: JATS XML for article structure; PDF-A for print-fidelity preservation; TIFF/PNG for images; lossless or high-quality codecs for audio/video.
• Open standards are preferred to reduce obsolescence risk.
• Normalization: Where possible, we normalize incoming files to preservation-grade formats without altering scientific meaning.

13.5 Fixity, Integrity, and Provenance

• Checksums (e.g., SHA-256) created at ingest and re-verified on a schedule.
• Write-once master objects and auditable change logs for any updates.
• Provenance metadata records when, how, and by whom content was deposited or modified.

13.6 Persistent Identifiers and Link Durability

• Articles receive DOIs; datasets/software receive persistent identifiers as available.
• We maintain landing pages that resolve even if files or platforms migrate.
• Reference linking via Crossref/Crosslinking and regular link-rot checks with redirects or updated citations where feasible.

13.7 Dark Archive & Trigger Access

• Content is deposited in at least one community dark archive that can “trigger” public access if our platform or business continuity fails.
• Trigger conditions follow the network’s governance (e.g., sustained unavailability, catastrophic loss).
• Triggered content remains openly accessible under the original licenses and versioning rules.

13.8 Backups and Disaster Recovery

• Daily encrypted backups with geographically separate storage; periodic full restores are tested to validate recoverability.
• Documented RPO/RTO targets appropriate to scholarly publishing: minimal data loss and timely restoration.

13.9 Versioning & the Historical Record

• Only one Version of Record per article; updates occur via formal notices (corrections, retractions, replacements) that are permanently linked.
• Prior versions of files may be retained internally for audit; public access follows the editorial policy for notices and transparency.

13.10 Journal Transfer and Title Changes

• If a journal moves between platforms or publishers, we preserve continuity of ISSNs, DOIs, and URLs via redirection and metadata updates.
• Title changes are recorded in metadata with forward/backward links; indexing services are notified.

13.11 Portfolio or Journal Discontinuation

• If a journal is discontinued, all published content remains online and citable with stable DOIs and an explanatory landing page.
• Dark archive and preservation partners retain copies to ensure availability.

13.12 Metadata Quality and Interoperability

• We register rich metadata (authors with ORCID, funders with standard identifiers, affiliations with ROR, licenses, references, grants).
• Structured exports (Crossref, JATS XML, KBART) support indexing, library discovery, and long-term interoperability.

13.13 Supplementary & Research Objects

• Supplementary files and source data are preserved with the article and documented in metadata.
• For very large or sensitive datasets, we require deposit in trusted repositories (see Section 7) with durable landing pages that we link and monitor.

13.14 Rights, Licenses, and Preservation

• We preserve and display the original license terms with each object and in metadata.
• Third-party materials with distinct rights are preserved with their credit lines and restrictions; access may be limited per permissions.

13.15 Accessibility Over Time

• Preservation includes commitments to accessibility: keeping text selectable, tagging structural elements in PDFs, and maintaining captions/transcripts for media where published (see Section 14).
• Format migration plans aim to maintain both content and accessibility features.

13.16 Transparency, Audits, and Reporting

• We maintain a public preservation statement listing all preservation partners and the content types deposited.
• Periodic audits validate deposit completeness, fixity, and trigger readiness; significant issues and their remediation are logged.
• The policy carries a version history and last-updated date.

14.1 Purpose and Scope

• We are committed to providing equitable access to all users—authors, reviewers, editors, and readers—regardless of disability, device, bandwidth, or location. This policy covers our websites, submission systems, article files, and communications.

14.2 Standards We Meet

• Conform to WCAG 2.2 Level AA across web properties and content templates.
• Apply relevant EN 301 549 / Section 508 requirements for customers who rely on them.
• Publish an up-to-date Accessibility Conformance Report (VPAT) for major platforms and formats.

14.3 Core Web Experience

• Keyboard accessibility for all interactive components; visible focus indicators; logical tab order.
• Skip-to-content and landmark navigation (header, main, nav, footer).
• Sufficient color contrast; no information conveyed by color alone.
• Responsive layouts that work on mobile, tablet, and desktop without loss of content or functionality.
• Respect user preferences: reduced motion, dark/system themes, text sizing without content loss.

14.4 Screen Reader & Semantic Support

• Clean semantic HTML, correct heading hierarchy, descriptive link text, meaningful button labels.
• ARIA used minimally and correctly (no duplicate or conflicting roles).
• Programmatic labels, instructions, and error messages for all forms; errors described in text and associated with fields.
• Language attributes set correctly and updated when passages switch language.

14.5 Documents and Article Files

• PDFs are tagged with proper reading order, headings, lists, table headers, alt text, and bookmarks; exported as PDF/UA where feasible.
• HTML articles are first-class deliverables with accessible math, figures, and tables.
• Math rendered as MathML (with a TeX fallback) and readable by assistive technologies.
• Tables include scope and headers; complex tables provide summaries or split views.
• Vector formats preferred for figures; raster images at adequate resolution with alt text or long descriptions.
• Provide machine-readable references and structured metadata (authors, ORCIDs, affiliations, funders, license).

14.6 Media (Audio/Video/Interactive)

• Closed captions and transcripts for audio/video; audio descriptions for essential visuals where needed.
• Media players support keyboard control, transcripts download, and no auto-play by default.
• Interactive figures/visualizations: keyboard operable, screen-reader discernible states, and accessible fallbacks (e.g., static images + data tables).

14.7 Images and Alt Text

• Every informative image has concise alt text conveying its function.
• Complex figures include long descriptions (within captions or supplementary materials).
• Decorative images marked with empty alt (alt="") and excluded from reading order.

14.8 Captchas, Timeouts, and Authentication

• Provide non-visual CAPTCHA alternatives (e.g., logic or email challenge).
• Adjustable or extendable session timeouts; warnings before expiry; re-authentication preserves user progress.
• Authentication flows do not rely on cognitive or sensory tests alone.

14.9 Submission & Peer Review Systems

• Accessible submission forms, error recovery, and autosave; progress indicators announced to assistive tech.
• File uploaders support keyboard operation and screen-reader feedback.
• Guidance for accessible manuscripts at submission (see 14.12) with quick checks before finalization.

14.10 Content That Could Induce Seizures or Discomfort

• No content flashes more than three times per second.
• Motion/animation effects are optional and respect “reduce motion” preferences.

14.11 Reader Controls

• Adjustable font size/line height; reflow without horizontal scrolling.
• Toggle for high-contrast mode; support for system dark mode.
• Downloadable accessible formats (HTML, tagged PDF; EPUB where available).

14.12 Author Guidelines for Accessible Articles

Authors must:

• Supply alt text for figures and meaningful captions; include scale bars and units in images.
• Provide data tables or CSVs for charted data when feasible.
• Use semantic structure (headings, lists), real text (not images of text), and concise, plain language abstracts.
• Ensure color-independent encodings in charts (patterns/markers).
• Submit MathML or LaTeX that can be converted reliably; avoid inline images of equations.
• Tag tables properly; avoid complex merged cells where possible.
• Provide transcripts for multimedia; describe essential audio/visual cues in the text.
• Declare any language switches in the text for accurate pronunciation.

14.13 Accessible Data & Code (Cross-refs Section 7)

• Datasets accompanied by data dictionaries, units, and accessible formats (CSV/JSON/Parquet with documentation).
• Repositories include README files in plain language; code examples runnable with minimal steps.

14.14 Communications & Customer Support

• All author and reviewer communications available in accessible HTML emails and web views.
• Provide multiple contact channels (email and web form) for accessibility assistance.
• Offer reasonable accommodations (extended deadlines, alternative submission formats).

14.15 Procurement & Third-Party Tools

• New platforms, plugins, and analytics tools undergo accessibility review before deployment.
• Third-party content (widgets, embeds) must meet WCAG 2.2 AA or have accessible alternatives.
• Contracts include accessibility service-level commitments and remediation timelines.

14.16 Testing, Monitoring, and Remediation

• Continuous automated testing (linting, axe, pa11y or equivalent) plus manual audits with assistive technologies.
• User testing with people who use screen readers, keyboard-only navigation, and switch devices.
• Issue tracker for accessibility bugs with public-facing summaries and expected fix timelines.
• Prioritize fixes that block core tasks (submission, reading, downloading).

14.17 Training & Governance

• Annual training for product, editorial, design, and engineering teams on accessibility principles and tools.
• A named Accessibility Lead coordinates audits, remediation, and responses.
• Change log on the accessibility page with dates and scope of improvements.

14.18 Exceptions & Alternative Access

• If a legacy artifact cannot be made fully accessible without disproportionate burden, we provide equivalent access (e.g., structured HTML, transcripts, or data tables) upon request and schedule a plan for remediation or replacement.

14.19 Feedback and Complaints

• Dedicated accessibility contact with response targets (acknowledge within 2 business days, substantive update within 10 business days).
• Escalation path to the Accessibility Lead for unresolved issues; outcomes documented and used to improve processes.

14.20 Transparency

• Public Accessibility Statement describing conformance status, known limitations, planned fixes, and the date of the last audit.
• Links to VPAT/ACR reports for major properties.

15.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy explains how we handle personal data across our publishing operations—including websites, submission and peer-review systems, email communications, events, and customer support. It applies to authors, reviewers, editors, readers, librarians, partners, and staff. It covers privacy by design, lawful bases, retention, security, data subject rights, international transfers, cookies, and incident response.

15.2 Roles and Responsibilities

• Data Controller: The publisher entity determining purposes and means of processing personal data for our services.
• Data Processors/Sub-processors: Vendors who process data on our behalf (hosting, manuscript systems, analytics, email, payment). All processors are bound by written Data Processing Agreements (DPAs) with confidentiality, security, and sub-processor approval terms.
• Data Protection Lead: A designated contact responsible for privacy governance, DPIAs, breach response coordination, and request handling. Contact details appear on our Privacy Notice page.

15.3 What We Collect (Categories of Personal Data)

• Identity & contact: name, title, pronouns, ORCID, affiliation(s), department, country, email, postal address, phone.
• Professional profile: expertise keywords, reviewer history, editorial roles, publication record, funding identifiers, ROR IDs.
• Account & usage: login identifiers, role permissions, preferences, access logs, device/browser info, IP address, activity timestamps.
• Content-related: author contribution statements, competing interests, acknowledgments, peer-review correspondence (confidential), public biographical notes.
• Payments & invoicing (where relevant): billing contact, transaction metadata (processed by PCI-compliant providers; we do not store full card numbers).
• Support interactions: messages, attachments, call notes.
• Cookies/trackers: identifiers and analytics events as described in 15.12–15.15.

15.4 Purposes and Lawful Bases (examples)

We process personal data only where we have a lawful basis and a clear purpose:

• Manuscript handling & peer review: contract (to provide the service) and legitimate interests (quality control, integrity).
• Editorial integrity checks (e.g., COI, peer-review validation, image/plagiarism screening): legitimate interests; legal obligation where applicable.
• Indexing, discoverability, and citation metadata (e.g., DOIs, ORCID linking): legitimate interests and public interest in scholarly communication.
• Customer support & service communications: contract and legitimate interests.
• Marketing communications (e.g., newsletters): consent (opt-in) or legitimate interests with clear unsubscribe and preference controls.
• Security, fraud prevention, abuse detection: legitimate interests and legal obligation.
• Analytics to improve platforms: legitimate interests with safeguards and, where required, consent (see cookies).

15.5 Special Categories & Sensitive Data

• We avoid collecting sensitive data (health, ethnicity, political opinions, etc.) unless strictly necessary (e.g., research ethics forms) and subject to a clear lawful basis, minimization, access controls, and retention limits. Do not include personal data of participants in manuscripts unless ethically and legally justified.

15.6 Data Minimization & Retention

• We collect only what we need for stated purposes.
• We retain personal data no longer than necessary: typical ranges
• Editorial records: for audit and integrity, a defined multi-year period consistent with community norms.
• Account & access logs: short, security-driven windows unless extended for investigations.
• Financial records: per tax and accounting laws.
• We publish a Retention Schedule summary on our Privacy page.

15.7 Data Subject Rights

Subject to applicable law, individuals may request:

• Access to their personal data and a copy in portable format where feasible.
• Rectification of inaccurate or incomplete data.
• Erasure where no longer needed or where consent is withdrawn and no other basis applies.
• Restriction or objection to certain processing, including direct marketing.
• Portability for data provided by the user where processing is based on consent or contract.
• We verify identity before fulfilling requests and respond within statutory timelines.

15.8 International Data Transfers

• When data move across borders, we use lawful transfer mechanisms (e.g., Standard Contractual Clauses, addenda, adequacy decisions). We assess local law risks and implement supplementary measures (encryption in transit/at rest, access controls, minimized identifiers).

15.9 Security Measures

• Technical: encryption in transit/at rest; network segmentation; role-based access; multi-factor authentication for staff/admin; secure software development lifecycle; vulnerability scanning and patching.
• Organizational: staff confidentiality agreements; least-privilege access; privacy and security training; vetted vendors; change management; incident drills.
• Integrity & availability: regular backups, restore tests, logging and monitoring, DDoS protection, and disaster recovery plans.

15.10 Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs)

• We conduct DPIAs for higher-risk processing (e.g., new analytics stacks, identity verification tools, automated decision-making). Controls are documented, owners assigned, and risks tracked to closure.

15.11 Children’s Data

• Our services target professionals and higher-education audiences. We do not knowingly collect data from children. If we learn we have inadvertently collected such data, we delete it promptly and adjust controls.

15.12 Cookies & Similar Technologies — Overview

• We use cookies, local storage, and similar technologies to operate sites, remember preferences, secure accounts, and measure usage. You can manage preferences through our Cookie Banner/Center and browser settings. Rejecting non-essential cookies may limit some features, but core access remains available.

15.13 Cookie Categories

• Strictly Necessary: security, load balancing, session management, consent storage. Cannot be disabled via the banner.
• Functional/Preferences: language, layout, accessibility settings.
• Analytics/Performance: aggregate metrics (page views, referral paths); configured with IP truncation or equivalent safeguards where available.
• Marketing/Personalization (optional): newsletters and campaign attribution; only active with opt-in consent where required.

15.14 Third-Party Cookies & SDKs

• We evaluate third-party scripts for privacy impact. Where used, they are listed in our Cookie Center with provider, purpose, and retention. We prohibit third parties from using our data for their independent advertising purposes without explicit consent.

15.15 Consent Management

• We request granular consent for non-essential cookies in jurisdictions where required, record the choices, and refresh consent periodically.
• You can withdraw or modify consent at any time via the Cookie Center or unsubscribe links.
• For email marketing, every message includes a working unsubscribe link and preference page.

15.16 Automated Decision-Making & Profiling

• We do not engage in solely automated decisions that have legal or similarly significant effects. Where limited profiling supports service improvements or content recommendations, we use aggregated or pseudonymous data with opt-outs where applicable.

15.17 Sharing and Disclosure

We share personal data only with:

• Service providers under DPAs;
• Scholarly infrastructure (e.g., Crossref/ORCID) to enhance discoverability;
• Institutions/funders for research integrity cases (see Section 10);
• Legal authorities where required by law.
• We do not sell personal data.

15.18 Breach Response

• Detection & containment: monitor, triage, and secure systems.
• Assessment: determine scope, categories affected, and risk.
• Notification: inform individuals and authorities without undue delay where required by law, with practical guidance to mitigate risk.
• Review: post-incident analysis and remediation to prevent recurrence.

15.19 Research Data vs. Personal Data

• Research content (datasets, images, transcripts) may include personal data subject to Section 5 (ethics) and Section 7 (availability). Authors are responsible for lawful sharing, de-identification, and appropriate repository access controls. We may restrict or condition access to protect participants.

15.20 Records of Processing & Governance

• We maintain an internal Record of Processing Activities (purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention, safeguards). A Privacy Change Log with version history and last-updated dates is published on our site.

15.21 Exercising Your Rights & Contact

• To make a privacy request or raise a concern, use our Privacy Request Form or email the Data Protection Lead listed on our Privacy page. We acknowledge requests within defined timelines and provide outcomes or next steps.

15.22 Updates to This Policy

• We revise this policy as laws and best practices evolve. Material changes are highlighted on this page with effective dates; where required, we will seek renewed consent for affected processing.

16.1 Purpose and Principles

• We disclose all fees clearly and ensure that ability to pay never influences editorial decisions. Prices are fair, published in advance, and supported by waiver and discount programs that promote global equity.

16.2 Editorial Independence From Fees

• Peer-review and acceptance decisions are fully independent of fees, funding, or waiver status.
• Editors and reviewers do not see payment information.
• Requests for waivers/discounts are handled by separate administrative staff.

16.3 What We May Charge (By Journal)

• Each journal’s page lists applicable items; not all journals use every fee.
• Article Processing Charge (APC): Covers editorial management, production, platform hosting, preservation, indexing, and customer support.
• Optional services (only where chosen by authors): color print, high-res figure services, language polishing, or fast-track handling (if offered).
• Reprints or print copies (optional).
• No submission fees, unless explicitly stated on a journal page.

16.4 What an APC Includes (Baseline)

• Manuscript handling and peer-review coordination
• Integrity checks (plagiarism, image screening)
• Copyediting and layout (XML, PDF, HTML/EPUB)
• DOIs and indexing deposits
• Long-term preservation (archiving partners)
• Web hosting, accessibility features, and customer support
• APCs do not purchase acceptance, prioritize decisions, or guarantee outcomes.

16.5 Fee Display and Currencies

• APCs are displayed in at least one major currency (e.g., USD) and, where helpful, additional reference currencies.
• Any taxes (VAT/GST) or payment processing charges are shown or explained before invoicing.
• We provide a currency and tax FAQ per region.

16.6 When Fees Are Invoiced

• For APC-based journals, invoices are issued only after acceptance.
• If a journal uses submission fees (rare), these are non-contingent and clearly labeled on the journal page.
• Purchase orders (POs) are accepted where institutional policies require them; payment windows are reasonable and stated on invoices.

16.7 Waivers and Discounts (Equity Policy)

• We support need-based and country-based assistance.
• Automatic waivers/discounts for corresponding authors affiliated in eligible economies (e.g., based on recognized indices).
• Need-based waivers for unfunded research or exceptional circumstances, available to authors in any country.
• Institutional or consortium discounts where agreements exist.
• Funder-linked coverage (e.g., transformative/read-and-publish deals) verified during submission.

16.7.1 How to Apply

• Authors complete a short Waiver Request Form at submission or post-acceptance (before invoicing).
• No personal financial documents are requested; we rely on declarations of funding status and affiliation.
• Decisions are communicated in writing and do not affect editorial handling.

16.7.2 Confidentiality & Non-Discrimination

• Waiver information is confidential and separate from peer review.
• We prohibit discrimination based on funding availability, geography, or institution type.

16.8 Transformative Agreements & Institutional Support

• Eligible authors may publish OA with fees covered or discounted under institutional read-and-publish or transformative agreements.
• Our submission system checks affiliations and offers the correct route automatically where possible; manual verification is available.

16.9 Fast-Track or Accelerated Handling (If Offered)

• Some journals may offer a paid production acceleration after acceptance; this never buys faster peer review or acceptance.
• Details (scope, limits, cost) are published transparently; availability varies by journal capacity.

16.10 Refunds and Cancellations

APC refunds are available if:

• an accepted article is withdrawn before publication due to publisher error; or
• production errors prevent publication and cannot be remedied.
• No APC is charged for rejections or withdrawals before acceptance.
• Retractions (post-publication) generally do not trigger refunds because publication services have been rendered; exceptions may apply in cases of publisher error.

16.11 Fee Waiver for Corrections and Ethical Notices

• We do not charge authors for corrections, expressions of concern, retractions, or editorial notes required to protect the scholarly record.

16.12 Inclusions/Exclusions Summary

• Included in APC: editorial management, integrity checks, production, DOI/indexing, hosting, preservation, accessibility compliance.
• Not included by default: article language polishing, extensive figure redrawing, or reprints—unless a journal explicitly bundles them.

16.13 Invoices and Documentation

• Invoices include journal title, article title, DOI (when assigned), license, corresponding author, and itemized charges.
• We support grant and funder reporting by providing standardized receipts and metadata.

16.14 Public Metrics & Reporting

• We publish time-bound service metrics (e.g., median time to first decision) with precise date ranges and methods.
• We may report portfolio-level waiver rates and agreement coverage to demonstrate equity impact.

16.15 Compliance With Funder and Institutional Policies

• We honor funder mandates (license, embargo, repository deposition).
• Where necessary, we issue author licenses or rights retention statements to meet funder requirements.

16.16 Advertising, Sponsorship, and Supplements

• Advertisers and sponsors have no influence on editorial decisions or fee waivers.
• Sponsored supplements (if any) follow the same peer-review standards and public funding role disclosures.

16.17 Transparency for Special Issues & Guest Editing

• Any article-level charges for special issues are identical to standard articles unless stated otherwise on the call for papers.
• Guest editors have no access to financial information and no role in waiver decisions.

16.18 Predatory Practices We Reject

• No surprise fees post-acceptance.
• No bundled upselling that implies improved editorial outcomes.
• No misleading metrics or undisclosed indexing claims.

16.19 How We Change Prices

• Price changes occur no more than annually and are posted on journal pages with effective dates.
• In-flight submissions are honored at the rate communicated at acceptance.
• Transformative agreement pricing follows contract terms and is communicated to participating institutions.

16.20 Contact and Appeals

• Authors may query or appeal waiver decisions via a dedicated Fees & Waivers contact.
• We respond within published timelines and provide reasons for decisions.

16.21 Record-Keeping

• Financial records are kept in accordance with tax and audit requirements.
• Waiver decisions are recorded without linking to editorial files; only minimal identifiers are stored for audit and equity tracking.

16.22 Plain-Language Summary (for Journal Pages)

• “Fees do not affect editorial decisions. If you lack funds, ask for a waiver or discount—your request is confidential and will not influence peer review. All fees and licenses are listed transparently with no surprises.”

17.1 Purpose and Principles

• This policy keeps editorial decisions independent from commercial influence. Advertising, sponsorship, and supplements are allowed only when they are clearly labeled, accurate, and separate from peer-reviewed content. Revenue arrangements never affect acceptance decisions, peer review, or research conclusions.

17.2 Firewalls and Governance

• Editorial firewall: Editors, reviewers, and editorial board members have no role in advertising sales, sponsorship negotiations, or billing.
• Commercial firewall: Sales and marketing teams have no access to confidential editorial content or peer-review files.
• Conflict checks: Any staff member involved in both editorial and commercial activities must declare and manage conflicts; dual roles in the same workflow are prohibited.

17.3 Clear Labeling and Distinction

• Display ads are labeled “Advertisement.”
• Sponsored content (publisher-created or partner-provided) is labeled “Sponsored” or “Paid Content,” includes the sponsor’s name, and is not peer reviewed unless explicitly stated.
• Supplements (sponsored issues/collections) are labeled on the cover, table of contents, and each article landing page with sponsor disclosures and the handling editor’s identity.
• Native ads and advertorials are permitted only with unambiguous labeling and a style that prevents confusion with editorial design.

17.4 Placement and Ad Serving

• Ads never appear within peer-review reports, editorial decisions, or PDF article bodies.
• Ads do not interrupt reading flows of article HTML (e.g., no interstitials that block access to the Version of Record).
• We prohibit ad placements adjacent to content where it would create misleading associations (e.g., disease claims next to clinical trial outcomes) unless a clear disclaimer is present.

17.5 Acceptable vs. Prohibited Advertising

• Acceptable: products and services relevant to research, education, healthcare, or professional practice, provided claims are truthful, evidence-based, and lawful in target jurisdictions.
• Prohibited: Illegal products/services; discriminatory or hateful content; political campaign ads; misleading “miracle cures”; spyware or deceptive software; adult sexual content; tobacco; weapons and explosives; predatory publishing services; deepfake or synthetic identity products; any ad that conflicts with our research-integrity standards.

17.6 Claims, Evidence, and Safety

• Health or performance claims must be substantiated by competent evidence; references may be requested.
• Comparative claims require fair comparisons with current, representative products.
• Ads must comply with local law (e.g., device/pharmaceutical rules, financial promotions). We may geo-restrict or decline ads that do not meet standards.

17.7 Targeting, Privacy, and Data Use

• Targeting uses minimal, privacy-respecting data; we do not sell personal data to advertisers.
• Behavioral targeting (if used) follows our Privacy & Cookies policy, honors consent choices, and excludes sensitive attributes (health status, race, religion, sexual orientation).
• Advertisers do not receive access to user-level browsing of peer-review content; reporting is aggregated and de-identified.

17.8 Third-Party Ad Tech and Measurement

• Ad servers and measurement providers must adhere to data-processing agreements and security standards.
• We vet tags/SDKs for privacy, performance, and accessibility impacts; intrusive or unsecure scripts are rejected.
• Metrics (impressions, clicks) are reported consistently and may be audited.

17.9 Editorial Independence in Sponsored Content

• Sponsors have no editorial control over peer-reviewed articles or acceptance decisions.
• For sponsored features (non-peer-reviewed): we retain final edit rights to ensure accuracy, tone, and compliance; sponsor review is limited to factual checking of sponsor-provided details.
• Any financial relationship relevant to content is disclosed prominently.

17.10 Supplements (Sponsored Issues/Collections)

• Peer review: Articles in supplements undergo the same peer-review and ethics standards as regular content; deviations (if any) are stated on the supplement page.
• Oversight: A senior editor (independent from the sponsor) oversees reviewer selection and decisions; sponsors cannot select reviewers or influence outcomes.
• Disclosures: Each article lists the sponsor, funding source, and sponsor role; data access and analysis independence are stated.
• Indexing: Supplements are indexed as part of the scholarly record with their own DOIs; corrections and retractions follow standard policy.

17.11 Industry-Funded Research and Medical Marketing

• Advertisements from pharma/biotech/medical device firms must comply with applicable advertising laws and avoid misleading therapeutic claims.
• Promotion of off-label uses is prohibited.
• Sponsored educational content must disclose all funding and potential conflicts; faculty/speakers provide COI statements.

17.12 Gifts, Inducements, and Undue Influence

• We do not accept gifts, travel, or hospitality that could reasonably be seen as influencing editorial or advertising decisions.
• Discounts, bundled packages, or partner deals must not create preferential editorial treatment.

17.13 Complaints and Corrections (Commercial Content)

• Readers may report misleading or inappropriate ads via a public contact channel.
• We investigate promptly; remedies may include ad removal, labels correction, or public notes.
• For sponsored content and supplements, factual errors are corrected with transparent notices; severe breaches may lead to withdrawal of the item and notice to relevant authorities.

17.14 Archiving and Transparency

• Sponsored materials and supplements are preserved and labeled permanently.
• A public Commercial Content Register lists current and recent sponsors of supplements and major campaigns, with dates and scopes.

17.15 Accessibility and Technical Standards

• Ads and sponsored content must meet WCAG 2.2 AA where feasible; no flashing content >3 Hz; keyboard operable; alt text for informative images.
• Heavy or intrusive creatives (auto-play audio, large CPU usage) are blocked.

17.16 Changes to This Policy

• Substantive changes are versioned with a last-updated date and communicated to advertisers and readers where appropriate.

18.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy governs special issues, thematic collections, and guest-edited supplements across our portfolio. It ensures topic relevance, rigorous peer review, conflict-of-interest (COI) management, and editorial independence from sponsors or commercial interests.

18.2 When We Launch a Special Issue

• Scholarly need: Clear rationale (emerging area, methods consolidation, replication initiative).
• Fit to journal scope: The host journal confirms alignment and capacity.
• Diversity of voices: Aim for geographic, institutional, career-stage, and methodological diversity in both guest editors and contributors.
• Feasibility: Timeline, expected submissions, reviewer availability, and production capacity are documented.

18.3 Guest Editor Eligibility & Roles

• Eligibility: Recognized expertise and a track record of rigorous, ethical scholarship; no recent sanctions for research-integrity violations.
• Roles: Draft the Call for Papers (CFP), advise on scope, nominate reviewers, handle editorial decisions under oversight (18.6), and uphold all portfolio policies.
• Training: Guest editors receive a short onboarding covering peer-review integrity, COI, AI use in editorial work, and anomaly detection.

18.4 Conflicts of Interest (Guest Editors & Team)

• Mandatory disclosures: Financial and non-financial interests for the past 3 years; institutional ties; active collaborations with prospective authors.
• Recusal: Guest editors must not handle manuscripts from current/ recent collaborators, same departments, family/close relationships, or direct competitors.
• Editor-authored submissions: If guest editors submit, their papers are managed by an independent handling editor outside the guest team, with firewalled access.

18.5 Call for Papers (CFP) Requirements

Every CFP must state:

• Aims & scope (clear inclusion/exclusion criteria).
• Article types invited and reporting standards.
• Ethics & transparency expectations.
• Submission window and deadlines, including the timezone.
• Fees/waivers (if any) with links.
• COI & funding disclosures required from authors.
• Preprint policy and data/code availability.
• Editorial independence and review model used.

18.6 Oversight & Governance

• Accountable Editor-in-Chief (EIC): Assigns an in-house Oversight Editor who monitors adherence to policy, conducts spot checks, and approves edge cases.
• Decision authority: Guest editors recommend; the journal’s EIC (or delegate) makes or confirms final decisions where policy requires.
• Audit trail: System logs retain assignments, COI decisions, reviewer selections, and rationales.

18.7 Reviewer Selection & Quality Control

• Standards identical to regular issues: At least two independent expert reviews (unless article type justifies fewer with rationale).
• No sponsor influence: Sponsors (if any) cannot suggest or approve reviewers.
• Diversity of expertise: Statistical/methodological review used when warranted.
• Co-reviewing: Allowed with prior approval and named junior co-reviewers.

18.8 Integrity Safeguards & Anomaly Detection

We screen for:

• Unusual authorship networks or repeated affiliations.
• Citation cartels, coercive citation, and abnormal reference patterns.
• Paper-mill signals (template phrasing, stock images, manipulated figures).
• Compressed timelines with insufficient review.
• Flagged manuscripts receive independent checks; the Oversight Editor may reassign editors, add reviews, or halt the collection.

18.9 Sponsored Supplements (If Applicable)

• Labeling: Sponsor name and role displayed on the collection page and article landing pages.
• Independence: Sponsor has no role in editorial decisions or reviewer choice.
• Standards: Same peer-review and ethics policies as regular issues; deviations (if any) are explicitly documented.
• Transparency: Funding statements and data access roles are published on each article.

18.10 Timeline Management

• Milestones: CFP launch, submission deadline, first-decision target, revision window(s), final acceptance, and publication date range.
• Scope creep: Major changes to aims or deadlines require public notice on the CFP page.
• Throughput: If backlog threatens quality, we cap acceptances or extend timelines rather than compress review.

18.11 Acceptance Rates & Balance

• Special-issue acceptance rates are monitored and reported internally; outliers trigger review by the Oversight Editor.
• Collections must not crowd out regular submissions; journals maintain a healthy topic and author diversity.

18.12 Ethics & Compliance Checks

Before acceptance, editors verify:

• IRB/IACUC/permits/registration.
• Reporting checklists.
• DAS/Code/Materials statements.
• Image integrity and figure provenance.
• COI/Funding statements for authors and guest editors.

18.13 Handling Misconduct or Process Failures

• During review: Pause or reassign; add independent reviews; escalate to integrity procedures.
• After publication: Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions follow standard policy; in severe cases we may invalidate a compromised special issue and re-evaluate included articles.

18.14 Communication & Branding

• Special issues are clearly branded with editors’ names and affiliations.
• No misleading claims (indexing, impact metrics, speed).
• All marketing materials link to the policy page and the CFP.

18.15 Data & Metadata

• The collection page lists guest editors, aims, CFP link, and articles with DOIs.
• Metadata includes a collection identifier for discovery; articles are cross-linked to the collection and main journal issue.

18.16 Accessibility & Inclusion

• CFPs and collection pages follow Section 14 standards (WCAG 2.2 AA).
• We encourage participation from underrepresented groups and provide reasonable accommodations (e.g., deadline flexibility for accessibility needs).

18.17 Compensation and Gifts

• Honoraria (if offered) are transparent and not contingent on acceptance counts.
• No gifts or hospitality beyond de minimis value; anything more is declined to protect independence.

18.18 Post-Publication Curation

• Collections may add invited perspectives, registered replies, or curated replications.
• Updates and corrigenda are linked bidirectionally; the collection page shows a change log.

18.19 Closure & Evaluation

• After completion, the Oversight Editor issues a brief internal report (adherence to policy, timelines, anomaly findings, acceptance rate, waiver utilization).
• Lessons learned inform future CFP templates and training.

18.20 Templates (for Immediate Use)

• 18.20.1 Guest Editor COI Declaration (excerpt)
  • “I, [Name], declare the following interests for the past 36 months: [financial/non-financial]. I will recuse myself from manuscripts where a reasonable reader would perceive a conflict. I will not handle manuscripts from current or recent collaborators, same departments, family/close relationships, or direct competitors.”
• 18.20.2 CFP Boilerplate (excerpt)
  • “Call for Papers — [Special Issue Title]
  • We invite original research, methods, reviews, and registered reports on [scope]. Submissions must follow journal policies on ethics, reporting standards, data/code availability, image integrity, and peer review. Deadline: [Date, Timezone]. Preprints welcome. Waiver information: [link].”

19.1 Purpose and Principles

• We support authors’ rights to update their names, initials, pronouns, and identifiers on published and in-process works with minimal burden, no public explanation, and strong privacy. Our goal is to respect identity, safety, and accurate attribution while preserving the scholarly record.
• Key principles:
  • No-questions-asked. We do not require reasons or documentation (e.g., court orders).
  • Privacy-first. We avoid public notices that expose prior names unless the author explicitly asks.
  • Scholarly continuity. We keep DOIs and citations stable while ensuring discovery under the updated identity.
  • Speed and care. Requests are handled promptly by a trained team with clear timelines.

19.2 Scope

Applies to all authors, editors, reviewers, and contributors across our portfolio. It covers:

• Personal name changes (first/middle/last), initials, diacritics, capitalization, order conventions.
• Pronouns, professional display names, and ORCID/ISNI updates.
• Corrections to affiliations and email addresses where appropriate.
• Retroactive updates to published content and associated metadata.

19.3 What We Will Change

• Article landing pages (HTML): display name, byline, metadata, contributor statements, peer review files (if published) updated.
• PDF/EPUB/XML (VoR): the author’s display name and contributor fields updated; the DOI stays the same.
• Supplementary files authored by the requester (captions/cover pages) updated where feasible without altering scientific content.
• Metadata deposits: Crossref, ORCID, indexing feeds, and repository records updated.
• Published reviewer recognition (where applicable) updated with consent.
• We do not change content authored by others (e.g., third-party letters) or alter authorship order unless the request also addresses an authorship matter.

19.4 What We Do Not Require

• No proof of legal name change.
• No coauthor approval.
• No public correction notice unless explicitly requested by the author.

19.5 Confidentiality Options (Author’s Choice)

• Silent Update (default). We update files and metadata without public notes; we do not disclose prior names.
• Public Note (on request). A brief, neutral statement (e.g., “The author’s name has been updated.”) without disclosing the previous name.
• Bridged Discovery (on request). We can maintain internal cross-references so that searches for a previous name redirect to the current profile without displaying the previous name publicly.

19.6 Discovery, Indexing, and Identifiers

• We push updated metadata to Crossref, ORCID, and other indexes.
• Authors should connect their works to their ORCID iD; we will assist with record linking.
• Where systems support it, we enable search under the updated name while avoiding exposure of old names (no “aka” by default).
• Bibliographic references in other publications remain as originally cited; the DOI resolves to the updated record.

19.7 Pronouns, Initials, and Diacritics

• Pronouns appear on profile pages and, where relevant, on editorial board listings; they are optional.
• We support diacritics and non-Latin scripts where platforms allow. If multiple scripts are supplied, we store both a display form and a search form to aid discovery.

19.8 Affiliations and Emails

• Affiliation in articles reflects the institution(s) at the time of the research; we correct only errors or legal requirements.
• Contact email for corresponding authors may be updated on landing pages and metadata to ensure reachability (e.g., institutional changes), without implying a new affiliation.

19.9 How to Request a Change (Simple Path)

Send a request via our Identity Update Form or dedicated email including:

• Your current name and the updated name.
• A list of affected DOIs (or we can search by ORCID).
• Your ORCID iD (preferred) or other verification (reply from an email already associated with a publication record).
• We confirm receipt within 2 business days and complete routine updates within a reasonable, stated timeframe.

19.10 Verification (Light-Touch)

• We verify authorship via ORCID authentication or reply from a known address on the article record.
• If neither is available, we may request minimal alternative verification (e.g., a coauthor cc’d for acknowledgment—not for approval) or institutional confirmation.
• We avoid collecting sensitive personal documents.

19.11 Handling in Production Systems

• Version of Record (VoR): updated files replace prior files; the DOI and citation remain unchanged.
• Change logs: internal-only records note the identity update; public-facing pages do not include prior names unless requested.
• Backups and preservation (Section 13) retain historical files under access controls; public access shows the updated VoR only.

19.12 Downstream Synchronization

We notify or re-deposit to:

• Crossref (author metadata),
• ORCID (assertion updates if authorized),
• Indexers/repositories integrated with our feeds,
• Publisher search and journal board pages.
• Some external services update on their own schedules; we document when deposits were sent.

19.13 Safety and Sensitive Cases

• If exposure of prior names could pose safety risks, inform us in the request; we will route to a privacy-trained team, accelerate the update, and avoid any public linkage.
• We will decline third-party requests to reveal former names absent a legal obligation.

19.14 Multi-Article and Portfolio-Wide Updates

• We accept portfolio-wide requests covering all works with us. If you also need updates at other publishers, we can provide a DOI list and template communications to streamline your outreach.

19.15 Editors, Reviewers, and Staff

• Editorial board pages, reviewer recognition lists, and governance documents will be updated upon request.
• Internal systems (peer-review accounts) are aligned so future communications use the updated name and pronouns.

19.16 Edge Cases

• Group or consortium authorship: We update member rosters and contribution statements where published.
• Historical scans or images: If a name appears in a scanned image (e.g., a signed letter) that cannot be edited without damaging the record, we update all accompanying text and metadata and, if desired, add a private note to reduce inadvertent exposure.
• Legal or ethics constraints: Where local law requires specific disclosures or prevents silent updates, we will explain options privately.

19.17 Costs

• There is no fee for identity updates.

19.18 Contact and Timelines

• Use the Identity Update channel listed on our site.
• We acknowledge within 2 business days, provide a target completion date, and inform you when downstream deposits are sent.

19.19 Continuous Improvement

• We review this policy periodically with our accessibility, privacy, and editorial teams and with community input. Updates are versioned with last-updated dates on this page.

20.1 Purpose and Scope

• We foster a professional, inclusive environment for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, partners, and staff. This code applies to all interactions on our platforms, at publisher-hosted events, in virtual spaces we moderate, and in direct communications.

20.2 Core Values

• Respect and dignity: Treat every person as a colleague.
• Evidence and integrity: Debate ideas with facts, not people.
• Equity and inclusion: Proactively reduce barriers tied to geography, language, disability, career stage, or identity.
• Safety: Zero tolerance for harassment, discrimination, or abuse.

20.3 Expected Conduct (All Participants)

• Be civil, specific, and evidence-based in critique.
• Use plain, non-derogatory language; avoid stereotypes and ad hominem remarks.
• Respect confidentiality in peer review and editorial processes.
• Honor access needs and respond promptly to reasonable accommodation requests.
• Disclose conflicts of interest and recuse when appropriate.

20.4 Prohibited Conduct

• Harassment (verbal, written, or visual), intimidation, stalking, or sustained disruption.
• Discrimination based on protected characteristics (e.g., gender, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, nationality), career stage, or economic status.
• Sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual attention; sharing sexualized images; suggestive or demeaning jokes.
• Doxxing or privacy violations, including sharing personal data without consent.
• Threats, hateful symbols, or incitement to violence or self-harm.
• Retaliation against anyone who raises a concern in good faith.
• Abuse of editorial privilege (e.g., coercive citation, hostile reviews, misuse of confidential information).

20.5 Inclusive Publishing Practices

• Author names and identities: Honor names, diacritics, and pronouns.
• Language guidance: Prefer person-first or identity-affirming wording; avoid stigmatizing labels. Use clear declarations for limitations and uncertainty.
• Figures and data: Avoid color-only encodings; provide alt text and accessible formats.
• Global accessibility: Offer time-zone awareness, asynchronous participation options for events, and low-bandwidth access to content where feasible.
• Fee equity: Waiver pathways are visible and stigma-free.

20.6 Editorial & Reviewer Diversity

• Strive for broad expertise across geography, institution type, methodology, and identity on editorial boards and reviewer pools.
• Track and periodically review participation patterns (e.g., invitations, acceptance rates, turnaround) to reduce systemic bias.
• Offer reviewer training resources and mentorship for early-career researchers.

20.7 Conferences, Webinars, and Workshops (Publisher-Hosted)

• All events display this Conduct Policy during registration and at the session start.
• Provide access accommodations (captions, interpreters on request with notice, accessible materials).
• Moderators enforce time limits, civility, and Q&A fairness (prioritize diverse voices, avoid panel domination).
• Event chat and Q&A are moderated; violations lead to removal.

20.8 Reporting Concerns (Conduct)

• How to report: Use our Conduct Report Form or contact the listed Conduct Officer (email available on our site). Provide dates, context, and any evidence available. Anonymous reports are reviewed when sufficiently specific.
• Our response: Acknowledge receipt promptly, assess risk, and take proportionate actions. When safe and appropriate, we will inform the reporter of the general outcome.
• Privacy: We protect reporter confidentiality to the extent permitted by law and due process.

20.9 Possible Actions (Proportionate and Documented)

• Educational reminder or warning.
• Content moderation (hide/remove posts), chat restrictions, or removal from an event.
• Suspension from reviewer/editor roles or community spaces.
• Ban from publisher events or platforms for a defined period.
• Notification to institutions or relevant bodies in serious cases.
• Editorial actions on manuscripts follow Section 10 (misconduct).

20.10 Anti-Retaliation

• Retaliation against anyone who reports a concern, participates in an investigation, or supports a reporter is itself a policy breach and may result in heightened sanctions.

20.11 Restorative Options (When Appropriate)

• When all parties agree and risk is low, we may facilitate mediated dialogue or restorative steps (e.g., apology, training, or community repair). Restorative processes are optional and never replace formal action where safety or integrity is at stake.

20.12 Data Handling for Conduct Reports

• Store conduct reports securely with limited access, retention aligned to legal and risk needs.
• Keep an internal log of actions taken to ensure consistency and fairness across cases.

20.13 Training & Awareness

• Annual training for staff and editors on inclusive communication, bias awareness, and de-escalation.
• Reviewer guidance includes examples of constructive critique and prohibited phrasing.
• Event moderators receive pre-briefs on enforcement scenarios.

20.14 Community Platforms & Social Media

• Official forums and social channels follow these standards; we remove content that violates the policy and may block repeat offenders.
• We do not endorse external comments by virtue of linking; amplification does not equal agreement.

20.15 Content Sensitivities

• For topics involving trauma, violence, or sensitive imagery, include content notes where appropriate and provide alternative text-only summaries.
• For studies with community impacts (e.g., Indigenous data, endangered species locations), apply safeguards and respectful framing.

20.16 Continuous Improvement & Transparency

• Publish a brief, periodic community report (aggregated, privacy-preserving) summarizing types of issues, response times, and improvements made.
• Maintain a version history and last-updated date for this policy; invite feedback via an open channel.

21.1 Purpose and Scope

• This section sets out how authors, reviewers, readers, editors, and staff can appeal editorial decisions, complain about process or conduct, and report integrity concerns (whistleblowing) across our portfolio. It covers intake, timelines, confidentiality, standards of review, outcomes, escalation, and records.

21.2 Definitions

• Appeal: A request from an author to reconsider an editorial decision, citing factual error, methodological misunderstanding, or material new evidence.
• Complaint: An allegation of procedural unfairness, bias, delay, accessibility failure, fee/waiver handling issues, or unprofessional behavior not tied to scientific integrity.
• Whistleblowing (Integrity Report): A good-faith report that research may be unreliable or that there is misconduct (fabrication/falsification/plagiarism, image manipulation, undisclosed COI, peer-review manipulation), whether pre- or post-publication.

21.3 Principles

• Fair, timely, documented. Each case is acknowledged, logged, and handled against published timelines.
• Independence. Decision reviewers are free of relevant conflicts and separate from commercial functions.
• Proportionality. Responses match the risk and impact.
• Non-retaliation. Reporters and participants in good faith are protected from retaliation.
• Privacy by default. We disclose the minimum necessary information and respect legal constraints.

21.4 How to Contact Us

• Appeals (authors): Use the Appeal a Decision form linked from the decision letter or journal site.
• Complaints (process/conduct): Use the Editorial Process Complaint form or the publisher contact listed on each journal’s page.
• Whistleblowing (integrity): Use the Research Integrity Report channel (anonymous submissions accepted if specific).
• Alternate channels (accessibility email, privacy request portal) route to the same tracking system.

21.5 What to Include

• Appeals: DOI/manuscript ID, decision letter date, precise points of error or misunderstanding (with citations/analyses), and any new evidence (e.g., additional data, reanalysis).
• Complaints: Event description, dates, involved roles (if known), desired remedy, and any supporting material.
• Integrity reports: Specific claim(s), affected figure/table/section, comparison sources, and any files evidencing the concern (e.g., raw images).

21.6 Timelines (Targets)

• Acknowledgment: within 5 business days.
• Appeal initial assessment: within 15 business days.
• Complaint initial assessment: within 15 business days.
• Integrity triage: within 10 business days (faster for high-risk cases).
• Complex cases may require more time; we will provide updates and revised targets.

21.7 Eligibility and Limits

• Only authors of record may appeal editorial decisions.
• Multiple or serial appeals must present new arguments or evidence; otherwise they may be declined with reasons.
• Complaints may be filed by any participant (author/reviewer/editor/reader) with standing. Anonymous integrity reports are considered when sufficiently detailed.

21.8 Standards of Review (Appeals)

• An appeal may be upheld when any of the following apply:
• Material error in interpreting the data, methods, or literature.
• Procedural irregularity (e.g., conflict not managed, key review omitted).
• New evidence that could reasonably change the decision.
• Editorial “difference of opinion” without error is insufficient for reversal.

21.9 How Appeals Are Handled

• Assigned to an independent editor (not involved in the original decision) or an Appeals Committee for complex cases.
• The independent editor may seek external advice (e.g., statistical review) and, where appropriate, de-identify materials.
• Outcomes:
  • Uphold original decision (with reasons).
  • Invite revision and re-review (specifying issues to address).
  • Overturn and accept (rare; requires strong justification).
  • A single appeal review is final at the publisher level unless new facts emerge.

21.10 Complaints About Process or Conduct

• Covers delays, communication failures, accessibility barriers, tone or civility, editorial bias, fee/waiver handling, or advertising adjacency concerns.
• Assessment: Fact-finding via logs, correspondence, and interviews as needed.
• Outcomes: Apology and remedial action (e.g., expedite handling, assign a new editor), training/coaching, or policy correction.
• Exclusions: Scientific content disputes are routed to appeals; allegations of misconduct move to integrity procedures.

21.11 Whistleblowing & Integrity Intake

• Risk triage: Categorize by severity (e.g., safety/clinical impact, dual-use risk, widespread error).
• Preserve evidence: Secure files, system logs, and versions; halt editorial progression if needed.
• Conflict check: Assign an Integrity Editor uninvolved with the work.

21.12 Confidentiality & Anonymity

• We protect reporter identity where feasible and lawful. Anonymous reports are considered on merit; limited disclosure may be required to verify facts.
• Parties receive only information necessary to respond; sensitive personal data are minimized or redacted.

21.13 Interaction with Institutions & Funders

• When concerns implicate research conduct, we may notify the relevant institution(s) or funder(s) and request an investigation report.
• Editorial actions (e.g., expressions of concern) may proceed in parallel where public risk exists, independent of institutional timelines.

21.14 Outcomes & Remedies (Integrity)

• Before publication: correction of files/figures, added disclosures, additional review, or rejection.
• After publication: correction, addendum, editor’s note, expression of concern, retraction, or retraction and replacement, with permanent, open notices.

21.15 Non-Retaliation & Safety

• Retaliation (threats, adverse professional actions) against reporters or participants is a serious violation and may result in bans from roles, notification to institutions, or legal steps where appropriate.

21.16 Bad-Faith or Abusive Reports

• Reports made knowingly false, vexatious, or intended to harass may be closed without action and can trigger sanctions (loss of reviewer/editor privileges, platform suspension).

21.17 Accessibility and Language

• Appeal/complaint forms are accessible (WCAG 2.2 AA). We provide alternative channels on request and accept submissions in plain English; short translations or summaries can be accommodated as capacity allows.

21.18 Record-Keeping and Transparency

• We maintain an internal case log with timestamps, handlers, decisions, and rationales.
• Aggregated, privacy-preserving annual statistics (volumes, response times, outcomes) may be published as part of our transparency reporting.
• All policies carry version histories and last-updated dates.

21.19 Escalation Path

• If a party believes the process was not followed, they may request an escalation review by a senior editorial leader unconnected to the case.
• External bodies (e.g., institutional RIOs, national ombuds) may be engaged where jurisdiction applies; we cooperate within legal bounds.

21.20 Closure

• Parties are informed of the outcome and the reasoning to the extent permitted by privacy and law.
• When remedies include process changes or training, responsible owners and timelines are documented.

21.21 Templates (For Immediate Use)

• Appeal Cover (Author):
• Manuscript ID/DOI: …
• Decision date: …
• Specific points of error/misunderstanding: …
• New evidence (files/links): …
• Statement: “This appeal is made in good faith; to my knowledge, all information is accurate.”
• Integrity Report (Whistleblower):
• Article ID/DOI or preprint link: …
• Concern type (e.g., image duplication in Fig. 2B; statistical anomaly in Table 1): …
• Evidence (attachments/links): …
• Risk (e.g., patient impact, biosafety): …
• Relationship to the work (optional): …

22.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy defines requirements for prospective registration, transparent reporting, and public disclosure of clinical trials and other regulated interventional studies across our portfolio. It applies to all human interventional research, regardless of outcome (positive, negative, or null), funding source, or setting.

22.2 What Counts as a “Clinical Trial”

• A clinical trial is any prospective, interventional study in human participants that assigns individuals or clusters to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate effects on health outcomes. This includes drugs, biologics, devices, procedures, behavioral or digital therapeutics, and prevention strategies. Pilot/feasibility trials and cluster trials are in-scope. Observational studies are not trials but may require registry listing when mandated by funders or law.

22.3 Prospective Registration (Mandatory)

• When: Register before enrolling the first participant.
• Where: Use a WHO-recognized public registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, EU CTR, ISRCTN, ANZCTR, UMIN, CTRI, ChiCTR, PACTR, ReBEC).
• What to include: Unique identifier; brief title; detailed interventions; eligibility; primary/secondary outcomes (with timepoints); sample size; randomization/blinding; sponsor/funder; locations; data-sharing plan (see 22.9).
• Manuscript requirement: Report the registry ID in the abstract or methods and ensure registry and manuscript fields match (title, outcomes, arms).

22.4 Protocols and SPIRIT Compliance

• Provide the full protocol (or an extended methods document) at submission, with version/date.
• Protocols should follow SPIRIT guidance. Any deviations or protocol amendments must be dated and justified in the manuscript and, where possible, updated on the registry.

22.5 Outcome Pre-Specification & Changes

• Primary and secondary outcomes must be pre-specified in the registry and protocol.
• Changes after registration must be time-stamped, reflected on the registry, and explicitly disclosed in the paper with rationale.
• Switching primary outcomes post hoc without disclosure is a serious breach and may lead to editorial action.

22.6 CONSORT-Aligned Reporting

• Trials must follow CONSORT (and relevant extensions: cluster, non-inferiority, pragmatic, pilot/feasibility, harms, CONSORT-AI for AI-enabled interventions). Provide a completed checklist and flow diagram. Report allocation, masking, attrition, analysis sets (e.g., ITT/PP), multiplicity controls, and harms with definitions and ascertainment methods.

22.7 Randomization, Allocation, and Blinding

• Describe sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation, and any stratification or blocking.
• State who was blinded (participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, analysts) and how blinding integrity was assessed; explain if blinding was not feasible.

22.8 Data Monitoring & Stopping Rules

• Declare whether a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) was used, its independence, and stopping boundaries.
• Report interim analyses, alpha spending/adjustments, and any early stopping with reasons (efficacy, futility, safety).

22.9 Data Sharing & Access (Trials)

• Include a Data Availability Statement and a Data Sharing Plan consistent with the registry entry: timing (e.g., 6–12 months after publication), scope (de-identified participant data, protocol, SAP), access route (controlled-access repository, DUA terms), and who approves requests.
• Use de-identification standards and controlled-access for sensitive data. Provide metadata and codebooks to enable reuse.

22.10 Results Disclosure Outside the Article

• When required by law or policy, post summary results to the registry within mandated timelines (e.g., 12 months after primary completion, unless an allowed delay applies).
• The manuscript should not be delayed to await registry posting; however, authors must complete required postings as soon as eligible.

22.11 Devices, Diagnostics, and Surgical Trials

• For devices/diagnostics, describe regulatory status (e.g., CE mark, IDE) and the reference standard for diagnostic accuracy.
• For surgical/procedural trials, detail operator expertise, learning curves, standardization, and fidelity monitoring.

22.12 Behavioral and Digital Health Interventions

• Specify the content, intensity, and delivery mode (e.g., app version, algorithm updates), adherence monitoring, and any co-interventions.
• For adaptive/digital trials, document version control, update cadence, and guardrails that prevent silent outcome switching.

22.13 Cluster and Pragmatic Trials

• Define clusters, recruitment windows, and intracluster correlation assumptions used in sample-size and analysis.
• Report CONSORT-Cluster items: cluster creation/allocation, participant identification/consent pathways, and handling of cluster-level covariates.

22.14 Vulnerable Populations & Consent

• For children, cognitively impaired adults, or other vulnerable groups, document assent/guardian consent and additional safeguards.
• If consent was modified (e.g., emergency research with deferred consent), provide the ethics approval and justification.

22.15 Harms, Adverse Events, and Benefit–Risk

• Define adverse events and serious adverse events, collection windows, attribution methods, and grading scales.
• Report all prespecified harms and notable unexpected events, even if none occurred (“no events observed” language must be precise).

22.16 Trial Registration for Non-Drug Interventions

• Registration is required for all interventional human studies, including behavioral, public health, rehabilitation, device, and surgical interventions. Quality-improvement projects that meet trial criteria must register.

22.17 Statistical Analysis and SAP

• Provide or cite a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP) with version/date.
• Pre-specify primary analysis populations and models, handling of missing data, interim looks, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity checks.
• Report effect sizes with uncertainty (CIs) and exact p-values where appropriate; address multiplicity.

22.18 Trial Registration for Secondary Analyses

• Secondary analyses of a registered trial must clearly link to the parent registration and identify whether analyses were pre-specified or post hoc.
• If new hypotheses/outcomes are introduced, register an ancillary record when feasible and state this in the manuscript.

22.19 Public Health Emergencies & Rapid Evidence

• During emergencies, expedited handling does not waive registration, ethics approvals, or data integrity requirements.
• Preprints and rapid communications must include registry IDs and clear uncertainty language; data sharing should be accelerated within safeguards.

22.20 Transparency, Access to Materials, and Replication

• Provide protocols, SAPs, and key materials (e.g., consent forms, case-report forms) in supplements or repositories when allowed.
• Enable replication by sharing code and de-identified datasets per Section 7; explain justified restrictions and access mechanisms.

22.21 Non-Compliance and Editorial Actions

• At submission: Trials without prospective registration may be rejected or considered only with a prominent Transparency Note explaining the deviation and its impact on bias.
• Post-publication: Failure to disclose registration, undisclosed outcome switching, or non-reporting of primary results may lead to corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction for unreliable reporting.

22.22 Roles, Funding, and Data Access

• State the funder’s role (design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, decision to submit) and who had full data access and verified the data.
• Disclose any contractual limits on publication or data sharing; agreements that allow funder veto or suppression are unacceptable.

22.23 Registration for Expanded Access/Compassionate Use

• Publications arising from expanded-access or compassionate-use programs must not be presented as trials. Clearly label the design, eligibility, monitoring, and limitations.

22.24 Linking and Metadata

• Article metadata include registry identifiers, protocol/SAP DOIs, and funder IDs. Preprints and AAMs should back-link to the same identifiers.

22.25 Continuous Improvement

• We periodically review this policy to align with evolving WHO, ICMJE, and regulatory requirements. Updates are versioned with last-updated dates; journals display any stricter, field-specific rules on their policy pages.

23.1 Purpose and Scope

• This section defines minimum standards for study design, analysis, and reporting across our portfolio. It applies to quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research. The goal is to make claims credible, transparent, and reproducible.

23.2 Study Design First

• Question → Design → Analysis alignment: The analytical plan must match the research question and design (experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative, or mixed).
• Protocol/preregistration: Provide time-stamped protocols and analysis plans where feasible; justify deviations.
• Construct validity: Define exposures/interventions and outcomes precisely; explain measurement tools, calibration, and validation evidence.
• Bias mapping: Identify likely biases (selection, information, confounding, measurement, survivorship) and address them in design/analysis.

23.3 Sampling & Power

• Sample-size justification: Provide power or precision calculations with all inputs (effect size, variance, alpha, power, ICC for clusters, expected attrition).
• Feasibility & stopping: State planned accrual, interim looks, and stopping rules where applicable.
• Representativeness: Describe the sampling frame, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and any weighting.

23.4 Randomization, Masking, and Allocation (if applicable)

• Sequence generation & concealment described in detail (method, blocking/stratification).
• Blinding: Who was blinded and how blinding integrity was checked; if not possible, explain mitigation (objective outcomes, centralized assessment).

23.5 Data Quality & Preprocessing

• Data provenance: Sources, linkage, and cleaning rules (outlier handling, winsorization, transformations).
• QC checks: Missingness patterns, duplicate detection, range checks; predefine exclusion criteria.
• Measurement reliability: Report instrument reliability/validity (test–retest, inter-rater, Cronbach’s alpha/omega where relevant).

23.6 Analysis Transparency

• Primary vs. secondary analyses: Label clearly; identify exploratory work.
• Model specification: Provide full model formulas, variable definitions, coding schemes, and inclusion criteria.
• Software & versions: Name packages and versions; share environment files or containers.

23.7 Effect Sizes, Uncertainty & Inference

• Report effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (or credible intervals for Bayesian analyses) and exact p-values where used.
• Avoid “statistical significance” as a binary proxy for truth; interpret magnitude, uncertainty, and context.
• Multiplicity control: Predefine family-wise or FDR procedures for multiple comparisons; report adjustments.

23.8 Missing Data

• Describe the mechanism (MCAR/MAR/MNAR) and rates by group/variable.
• Use principled methods (e.g., multiple imputation, IPW) where appropriate; perform sensitivity analyses to assess robustness.

23.9 Assumptions & Diagnostics

• Report checks for linearity, homoscedasticity, independence, distributional assumptions, influence/leverage, and collinearity.
• Provide model fit indices and calibration where relevant (e.g., Hosmer–Lemeshow limits, calibration plots, Brier score).

23.10 Causal Inference in Non-Randomized Studies

• Design first: Use DAGs or equivalent reasoning to justify adjustment sets.
• Methods may include propensity scores (matching/weighting), instrumental variables, regression discontinuity, difference-in-differences, synthetic controls.
• Test parallel trends/overlap/weak instrument risks and provide robustness & falsification checks; consider E-values or bias-sensitivity analyses.

23.11 Prediction & Machine Learning

• Data splits: Separate train/validation/test; avoid leakage (e.g., scaling within CV folds only).
• Cross-validation: Nested CV for model selection; report hyperparameters and tuning grids.
• Performance: Discrimination (AUC/PR-AUC), calibration, and decision-centric metrics; include confidence intervals via resampling.
• External validation: Preferably on out-of-distribution data; discuss dataset shift and generalizability.
• Fairness & subgroup performance: Report metrics across salient subgroups; address imbalance and harms of misclassification.
• Interpretability: Provide feature importance/SHAP or model cards with limitations and intended use.

23.12 Time-to-Event & Longitudinal Data

• Survival: Proportional hazards checks; alternatives when violated (time-varying effects, AFT, flexible hazards).
• Longitudinal/multilevel: Specify random effects, correlation structures, and intra-class correlations; justify missing-data handling.

23.13 Qualitative Rigor

• Specify methodology (e.g., grounded theory, phenomenology, thematic analysis).
• Sampling: Rationale and saturation.
• Credibility & trustworthiness: Triangulation, member checking, audit trails, reflexivity statements.
• Provide codebooks/frameworks and (where ethical) de-identified excerpts.

23.14 Mixed-Methods Integration

• Describe design type (convergent, explanatory, exploratory), integration points, and how qualitative and quantitative strands inform each other (meta-inferences).

23.15 Robustness & Sensitivity

• Predefine robustness checks: alternative specifications, influence diagnostics, bandwidth/placebo tests for quasi-experiments, alternative outcome definitions.
• Report all material sensitivity results, not only those that favor conclusions.

23.16 Graphical & Tabular Reporting

• Use clear axes, units, and scales; avoid deceptive truncation.
• Show distribution-level information (e.g., scatter/violin/box) rather than mean ± SE alone.
• Provide n per group and the definition of error bars.
• Supply machine-readable tables or data files for plotted results.

23.17 Reproducible Computation

• Share analysis code and minimal runnable examples reproducing key tables/figures.
• Include seeds for stochastic procedures; document randomization schemes in simulations.
• Prefer scripted workflows (Makefiles, notebooks with execution order, or pipelines) over manual steps.

23.18 Interim, Sequential, and Adaptive Analyses

• Declare interim looks and alpha-spending; use appropriate boundaries (e.g., O’Brien-Fleming).
• For adaptive designs, document adaptation rules and simulation-based operating characteristics.

23.19 Outliers & Influential Observations

• Predefine rules for detection/handling; report sensitivity with and without influential points.
• Never delete data solely for “improving significance.”

23.20 Pre-Spec vs. Post-Hoc

• Label clearly. Distinguish pre-specified hypotheses from exploratory analyses.
• Exploration is welcome when transparently reported and not reframed as confirmatory evidence.

23.21 Negative, Null, and Replication Studies

• Welcome and evaluate on methodological quality, not outcome direction.
• Replications should clarify direct vs. conceptual and align materials and protocols; report deviations.

23.22 Decision Thresholds & Claims

• Avoid overstating certainty. Claims must reflect evidence weight, limitations, and generalizability.
• Where policy/clinical thresholds are used, justify them and present decision-relevant trade-offs.

23.23 Editorial & Specialist Review

• Editors may request statistical/methods review for complex analyses.
• Authors must provide data/code and image originals on request; inability to verify may affect editorial decisions.

23.24 Checklists & Author Responsibilities

• Submit a methods checklist covering items above (design, power, missing data, diagnostics, multiplicity, robustness, code availability).
• Ensure all figures/tables match the reported analyses and that materials are accessible.

23.25 Sanctions for Non-Compliance

• Pre-publication: revise-and-resubmit or rejection for inadequate rigor/transparency.
• Post-publication: correction, expression of concern, or retraction if results are unreliable.

24.1 Purpose and Scope

• This policy defines how we verify published work after publication to protect the scholarly record. It covers triggers, audit procedures, author responsibilities, confidentiality, outcomes, and records. Audits aim to clarify facts—not to punish—while ensuring rapid correction when needed.

24.2 Triggers for an Audit

An audit may be initiated by:

• Reader, reviewer, or whistleblower reports (specific, evidence-based concerns).
• Editorial screening signals (e.g., image duplication alerts, reference anomalies, statistical red flags).
• Post-publication discourse (letters, comments, preprint critiques, replication failures).
• Portfolio-wide sweeps (periodic checks for known risk patterns, e.g., paper-mill indicators).

24.3 Principles

• Fair, proportionate, and documented.
• Transparency to readers once a material issue is confirmed.
• Due process for authors with clear timeframes.
• Independence from commercial interests.

24.4 Scope of Audits

Audits may check:

• Data integrity (raw data presence, consistency with figures/tables).
• Image provenance (original files, processing steps, composite labeling).
• Code and computational reproducibility (environment, scripts, outputs).
• Methodological fidelity (consistency with protocol/registry/SAP).
• Ethics and approvals (IRB/IACUC, permits, consent documentation).
• COI/funding disclosures completeness.

24.5 Author Responsibilities

• Timely cooperation: Acknowledge within 5 business days; provide requested materials by the specified date.
• Materials to supply: Raw data (or controlled-access route), original images, analysis code and environment files, protocols/SAPs, approvals, data dictionaries.
• Point of contact: Name a corresponding audit liaison who can coordinate materials and clarifications.
• Retention: Maintain artifacts per Sections 5, 7, and 13; inability to produce promised materials may affect outcomes.

24.6 Confidentiality and Data Protection

• Audit materials are handled under strict confidentiality and data-protection controls (see Section 15).
• Human data: Use controlled-access transfers; share only the minimum necessary.
• Materials are used solely for verification and not for unrelated research.

24.7 Levels of Audit (Escalating)

• Level 0 — Clarification: Minor query resolved by author email; no public notice.
• Level 1 — Targeted Check: Limited review of specific figure/table/code segment; may result in a brief correction.
• Level 2 — Expanded Audit: Broader verification (multiple figures, datasets, or sections) with independent methods/statistical review.
• Level 3 — Portfolio Review: When systemic issues are suspected (e.g., guest-edited collection or paper-mill pattern), we audit related articles.

24.8 Independent Expertise

• We may engage external experts (statistics, imaging forensics, domain specialists) bound by confidentiality and COI declarations.
• For clinical or biosafety concerns, we may consult institutional or regulatory bodies in parallel.

24.9 Timelines

• Acknowledgment to reporter: within 5 business days (when contactable).
• Initial author request: within 10 business days of trigger.
• Author response window: typically 14–30 days, proportionate to scope; extensions considered with justification.
• Status updates: provided to authors and, when appropriate, to the reporter at key milestones.

24.10 Decision Framework & Outcomes

• No action: Concerns unfounded or clarified; internal note recorded.
• Correction/Addendum: Minor errors that do not alter conclusions (e.g., mislabeled axis, missing unit, code path note).
• Replacement Figures/Data Note: Replace an image/plot with correct version; provenance disclosed.
• Expression of Concern (EoC): Public notice while investigation continues for substantial, unresolved doubts.
• Retraction / Retraction & Replacement: When findings are unreliable or misconduct/honest error invalidates conclusions (Section 10).
• Sanctions: For non-cooperation or confirmed misconduct, actions per Section 10 may apply.

24.11 Public Communication

• Where the record is affected, we publish a clear, neutral notice linked bidirectionally to the article describing the issue, verification steps, and outcome.
• We avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal data or speculative statements.

24.12 Audit Trails & Preservation

• Maintain an internal audit file (requests, evidence, analyses, decisions).
• Updated files (e.g., corrected figures) replace prior versions while preserving version history (Section 13).
• Indexers (e.g., Crossref) receive updated metadata for corrections/EoCs/retractions.

24.13 Replication Packages & Post-Audit Artifacts

• When feasible, publish improved replication packages (clean code, documented data transforms, environment files) as supplementary material or in repositories with DOIs.
• If access must remain controlled (privacy/safety), publish metadata and an access route.

24.14 Appeals of Audit Outcomes

• Authors may submit a reasoned appeal with new evidence or procedural concerns within a defined window (e.g., 30 days).
• Appeals are handled by an independent editor/committee not involved in the initial review (see Section 21).

24.15 Education and Prevention

• Aggregate, anonymized insights from audits inform author guidance, reviewer training, and automated checks (Sections 6–9).
• We periodically share a portfolio integrity report (privacy-preserving) highlighting common issues and fixes.

24.16 Non-Cooperation

• Failure to engage or to provide promised materials without compelling justification may itself prompt editorial action (EoC, correction, or retraction) to protect readers.

24.17 Coordination with Institutions & Funders

• Where institutional investigation is necessary, we coordinate timelines while retaining the ability to issue interim public notices to mitigate risk.

24.18 Scope Limits

• Audits assess verifiability and consistency with stated methods; they are not full re-analyses unless needed to resolve material concerns.
• We prioritize issues that could change conclusions, safety, or policy relevance.

24.19 Record Keeping & Metrics

• Log counts, turnaround times, and outcomes; review periodically for process improvement and resource planning.
• Maintain versioned policy with last-updated dates on this page.

25.1 Purpose

• The Transparency Dashboard gives the research community verifiable, up-to-date information about how our publishing program performs—editorial speed, rigor, openness, integrity actions, inclusion, accessibility, and preservation. Numbers are accompanied by clear definitions, methods, and time windows so they are interpretable and auditable.

25.2 Scope

• The dashboard covers all journals we publish. Journal-level views roll up to portfolio totals. Unless stated, metrics apply to research content (original research, short reports, methods, datasets, software papers) and exclude front matter (editorials, news), corrections, and retractions.

25.3 Update Cadence & Windows

• Update cadence: monthly refresh; quarterly static snapshots (DOI-assigned) for citation and reference.
• Windows displayed: rolling 6-month and 12-month windows, with exact start/end dates on every chart/table. Historical archives are browsable by quarter.

25.4 Publication & Download

• Each metric has: definition, formula, denominator, inclusions/exclusions, time window, and last refresh timestamp.
• Users can download CSV and JSON for every view; quarterly snapshots have a landing page with a DOI and version notes.
• A machine-readable schema (see 25.12) describes fields to support reuse and auditing.

25.5 Metric Families (what we publish)

• Editorial Workflow
• Submissions received; desk-reject rate.
• Median Time to First Decision (calendar days).
• Median Time Acceptance→Publication (calendar days).
• Revise cycles per accepted paper (median, IQR).
• Transfer offers/acceptance within portfolio.
• Rigor & Integrity
• Articles with methods/statistics review beyond standard peer review (share).
• Articles with open data/code/materials (three separate percentages).
• Corrections / Expressions of Concern / Retractions (counts and per-1,000 articles; reasons categorized).
• Post-publication audits initiated and outcomes (Section 24 categories).
• Ethics & Registration
• Clinical trial prospective registration rate and registry ID presence rate.
• Human/animal research with ethics statement present (share).
• Data sharing plan presence in trials.
• Peer Review Transparency
• Review models used (double-anonymized / single-anonymized / open / transparent), per article share.
• Articles with published peer-review files (share).
• Reviewer turnaround (median days) and report length (median word count), where available.
• Openness & Licensing
• License mix (CC BY, CC BY-NC, CC BY-NC-ND, other).
• Self-archiving (AAM) links present (share).
• TDM-readiness (machine-readable license embedded; share).
• Accessibility
• Pages meeting WCAG 2.2 AA checks (rate).
• Articles with tagged PDF/UA (share).
• Media with captions/transcripts (share).
• Preservation & Indexing
• Articles deposited with LOCKSS/CLOCKSS / Portico (share).
• Metadata completeness rates (ORCID for all authors; ROR for affiliations; license URI; funder IDs).
• Indexing coverage (where confirmed by index).
• Equity, Inclusion & Fees (aggregated, privacy-preserving)
• Waiver/discount utilization (share), by World Bank income group and by field.
• APC distribution (median, IQR) for OA venues.
• Geographic distribution of corresponding authors (region-level).
• Accessible-format requests fulfilled (count, on-time rate).
• Community & Complaints
• Appeals received → outcomes (upheld / revision invited / not upheld).
• Editorial-process complaints (counts, median resolution days).
• Conduct reports — aggregated counts and actions.

25.6 Definitions & Formulas (examples, published on the dashboard)

• Median Time to First Decision (days) = median over articles in window of (decision_date − submission_date).
• Open Data Share (%) = (# articles in window with a Data Availability Statement that links to a functioning repository landing page and passes automated link check) ÷ (# articles in window) × 100.
• Correction Rate (per 1,000) = 1,000 × (# corrections posted in window) ÷ (# articles published in same window).
• WCAG Pass Rate (%) = pages passing automated checks for AA success criteria ÷ pages tested × 100; manual audits reported separately.
• A full glossary accompanies the dashboard; every metric displays its denominator and any exclusions (e.g., editorials).

25.7 Methods & Quality Controls

• Provenance: Metrics are computed from submission/production logs, DOI/metadata deposits, and preservation receipts.
• Link checks: Automated, nightly validation of repository and license links; failures are flagged and reduce the “open” metric until fixed.
• Outlier handling: We publish medians and IQRs; means are shown only when distributions are symmetric.
• Missing data: We show counts missing and exclude them from denominators only when justified (rule published beside metric).
• Audit trail: Each refresh stores inputs, code hash, and outputs; quarterly snapshots are reproducible from frozen inputs.

25.8 Privacy, Ethics & Fairness

• Aggregation thresholds: We suppress or group categories with n < 5 to prevent re-identification.
• No ranking league tables between journals without context; comparisons include confidence intervals and caveats.
• Sensitive attributes (e.g., gender) are not inferred; any voluntary self-reported attributes are shown only as high-level aggregates with explicit consent and opt-out.

25.9 Anti-Gaming & Integrity of Metrics

• Definitions and code are public; retroactive restatements are logged with reasons.
• We prohibit marketing claims that cherry-pick windows or exclude relevant content.
• Periodic internal audits and, where appropriate, external assurance review methodology and samples.

25.10 Accessibility of the Dashboard

• Conforms to WCAG 2.2 AA: keyboard-operable filters, high contrast, screen-reader labels, downloadable data tables for each chart, and text alternatives for insights.
• All charts include plain-language summaries and list sample sizes.

25.11 Changelog & Versioning

• Every quarterly snapshot has a DOI, semantic version (e.g., 2025.Q3.v1), and changelog describing metric changes, bug fixes, and restatements.
• “Methodology changes” badges appear on affected charts for one full window after any definitional update.

25.12 Data & API Schema (summary)

• Endpoints: /portfolio, /journal/{issn}, /timeseries/{metric}, /snapshot/{quarter} (JSON & CSV).
• Core fields: metric_id, metric_name, definition_url, window_start, window_end, value, units, denominator, n_missing, ci_low, ci_high, journal_id, journal_title, subject_area, last_refreshed, method_version.
• Licensing: Data released under CC BY 4.0; code samples under an OSI license.
• Rate limits: Optimized for reproducible harvesting; bulk downloads via snapshot files.

25.13 Journal-Level Pages

• Each journal page displays a subset of portfolio metrics with the same definitions, plus any journal-specific notes (e.g., specialized article types). Where a journal uses a different peer-review model for a subset, this is indicated with in-chart notes.

25.14 Interpretation Guidance (on the dashboard)

• Medians and IQRs are more robust than means for skewed timelines.
• Longer time to publication may reflect thorough revision rounds or complex production (e.g., large datasets).
• Open data/code shares can vary by field due to ethics or IP constraints; we encourage controlled-access routes rather than simple binaries.

25.15 Responsibilities & Contacts

• Owner: Research Integrity & Analytics Team.
• Data stewards: Journal Managing Editors (inputs), Product Analytics (pipelines), Accessibility Lead (conformance).
• Contact: Dashboard feedback channel; we acknowledge within 5 business days and log issues publicly.

25.16 Continuous Improvement

• Annual community consultation on new metrics (e.g., replication packages quality, FAIRness scores).
• Pilot studies may appear as experimental metrics labeled clearly and excluded from portfolio rollups until validated.

Inclusive Language & Fair Representation
26.1 Purpose

• We require clear, respectful language that avoids bias or stigma and accurately represents people and communities.

26.2 Requirements for Authors

• Respectful terms. Use people-first or identity-first language in line with community preferences (e.g., “people with diabetes” or “autistic people,” as appropriate to the community and context).
• Avoid bias. Do not imply deficits, stereotypes, or value judgments about age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, religion, socioeconomic status, or geography.
• Describe categories precisely. Define how demographic variables were measured, coded, and reported. Avoid vague labels (e.g., “the Third World,” “developing,” “normal controls”).
• Name what you measured. Distinguish sex (biological attributes) from gender (social roles/identity); state how each was ascertained.
• Plain, accessible English. Prefer clear, direct sentences; explain acronyms on first use.
• Community-sensitive topics. When research may affect identifiable groups, avoid stigmatizing frames; include limitations and context that reduce misinterpretation.

26.3 Editorial Checks

• Manuscripts with potentially sensitive terminology receive a light editorial review for language. Where changes improve clarity or reduce bias, we request revisions with examples.

Sex & Gender Reporting (SAGER-Aligned)
27.1 Scope

• Applies to studies involving humans, animals, cells, tissues, or datasets where sex or gender may influence design, analysis, or interpretation.

27.2 Minimum Reporting

• Design: State whether sex and/or gender were considered in eligibility, sampling, and randomization; justify single-sex/gender studies.
• Measures: Define and justify how sex and/or gender were measured or inferred; avoid proxy measures unless validated.
• Analysis: Report sex-/gender-disaggregated descriptive statistics. Conduct pre-specified subgroup or interaction analyses where biologically or socially plausible; label any post-hoc exploration.
• Results & interpretation: Discuss sex-/gender-related limitations, generalizability, and implications.
• Null results welcome. Report absence of differences transparently.

27.3 Where to Put It

• Include a brief “Sex/Gender Reporting” paragraph in Methods and, where relevant, in the Limitations.

Generative AI: Internal Editorial Use & Disclosure Addendum
28.1 AI Is Assistive, Not Decisive

• Publisher staff, editors, and reviewers may use vetted tools for grammar, organization, or reference checks. Automated outputs do not make editorial decisions.

28.2 Confidentiality Guardrails

• No confidential content (unpublished manuscripts, peer-review reports, author identities, participant data) may be input to external tools that store or train on user data.
• Only approved, contract-bound tools may be used for any operation that touches non-public content.

28.3 Author Disclosure Reminder (Public)

• Where authors used generative tools, include an AI Use Statement specifying which tool, for what purpose, and how humans verified outputs. AI systems are not authors.
• Template (edit as needed):
  • “An AI tool was used for [language polishing/translation/figure drafting/code assistance]. All content was verified and edited by the authors. No confidential or personal data were shared with external systems.”

28.4 On “AI Detectors”

• We do not rely on “AI-detectors” to judge authorship. Our focus is disclosure, verification, and integrity (data, methods, citations, images).

Special Issues & Guest Editing: Governance Addendum 
29.1 Oversight

Every special issue is paired with an Oversight Editor (from the host journal) who:

• verifies conflict-of-interest declarations for guest editors,
• audits reviewer selection patterns, timelines, and acceptance rates, and
• can reassign manuscripts or add independent reviews when needed.

29.2 Firewalls

• Sponsors have no role in peer review, reviewer choice, or acceptance decisions.
• Guest editors may not handle papers from close collaborators, same departments, or direct competitors (past 36 months).

29.3 Transparency on the Issue Page

• Each collection displays: aims & scope, guest editors’ affiliations, review model, any sponsorship, and a note confirming standard peer-review and ethics checks.

29.4 Anomaly Triggers

• Red flags (compressed review windows, unusual citation clusters, repeated author networks, image irregularities) trigger added checks or re-review. Compromised collections may be paused or re-curated.

Article-Level Verification Notes & Badges
30.1 Purpose

• Give readers quick, verifiable signals of compliance—without marketing spin.

30.2 Badges/Notes We Display (when applicable)

• Registry Match Verified (Trials): Editorial team verified that registry fields (title/arms/outcomes) match the manuscript.
• Image Screening Completed: Figures passed automated screening and human inspection where flagged.
• Data Links Checked: Data/Code Availability links resolve to working repository landing pages at publication.
• Peer-Review Transparency: Review reports and decision letters published (for journals that offer this).

30.3 Documentation

• Each badge links to a short, public explainer describing what was verified, how, and date range. Fail-safe: if links break or verification fails post-publication, the badge is temporarily hidden until resolved.

Editorial Diversity & Inclusion Commitment 
31.1 Commitment

• We strive for diverse editorial boards and reviewer pools across geography, institution type, career stage, and identity to reduce systemic bias and broaden expertise.

31.2 Practices

• Track invitations, acceptances, and turnaround times to spot imbalances.
• Refresh boards regularly; add methodological and statistical expertise.
• Offer mentored co-review for early-career researchers (with consent and disclosure).

31.3 Transparency

• We publish portfolio-level aggregates (not individual data) annually on the Transparency Dashboard.