1. Human and Animal Rights Policy

1.1. Human Research

If human subjects were involved in the experiments, authors must identify the approving committee or organization (e.g., the author’s Institutional Ethics Review Board) in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript. This section should also include details of the ethics approval, such as the name of the approving body and the approval identifier (e.g., reference number). Authors are required to provide proof of ethics approval or an ethics statement upon submission. If approval identifiers are unavailable, written approval from the granting committee or organization must be submitted as a confidential supplementary file.

The manuscript must include a statement in the Materials and Methods section confirming that the experiments were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the WMA Declaration of Helsinki or other relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations, and that informed consent was obtained from all human subjects. The method of obtaining consent (i.e., written or oral) must also be clearly specified.

Authors must ensure that participants are informed of the purpose of the study, as well as any potential risks and benefits, and of their right to refuse or withdraw consent. For studies involving minors (see §1.3 for definition), consent must be obtained from a parent or legal guardian.

Authors are obliged to declare and clearly specify any restrictions on the availability or the use of human data in the manuscript.

1.2. Patient Anonymity and Privacy

Human subjects have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information or patient identifiers, including patient names, initials, date of birth, contacts, medical record identifiers, hospital identifiers, and geographical location, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Efforts must be made by the authors to at least mask or conceal any identifying information of the patients that appear in writing or within photograph.

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Authors are obliged to explain to the patient if revealing the patient’s identity cannot be fully avoided, e.g., an image of an identifiable body part like the face has to be published in the report. The relevant identifying information to be published, e.g., the image, must be shown to the patient, and consent for publication taken for the use of that information in the publication. If the patient dies, then consent must be obtained from next of kin or legal representative. We shall consider author version of consent form for publication if all the essential items as shown in our sample consent form were included. Author-generated consent forms may be accepted provided they contain the essential elements of informed consent as outlined by the ICMJE.

Consistent with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidance, all submissions will be checked for documentation of patient consent for publication and for any potentially identifying information.

1.3. Research Involving Vulnerable Populations

Research involving vulnerable populations requires heightened ethical scrutiny to ensure that participation is genuinely voluntary, that risks are minimized, and that the benefits of the research are commensurate with any burdens placed on participants（see International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans for more information）.

For the purposes of this policy, vulnerable populations include but are not limited to:

• Individuals with diminished decision-making capacity, including those with cognitive impairments, intellectual disabilities, dementia, acute psychiatric conditions, or any condition that may affect the ability to provide free and informed consent;
• Minors (persons under the age of 18, or the applicable age of majority in the relevant jurisdiction);
• Prisoners and incarcerated persons, whose circumstances may compromise the voluntariness of consent;
• Economically disadvantaged individuals, where financial inducements may unduly influence participation;
• Pregnant women and fetuses, where research may carry risks to both the participant and the fetus;
• Indigenous and marginalized communities, where individual consent may be insufficient without broader community consultation in accordance with applicable cultural protocols and legal frameworks.

Authors must identify in the Materials and Methods section any vulnerable populations involved in their research and describe the specific measures taken to protect participants’ rights and welfare. Ethics approval documentation must reflect the involvement of vulnerable groups and confirm that the approving body gave explicit consideration to their protection.

1.3.1. Consent and capacity. Where a potential participant lacks the capacity to provide informed consent, authors must describe how capacity was assessed, identify the legally authorized representative(s) who provided consent on the participant’s behalf, and confirm that assent was sought from the participant themselves wherever practicable. Any research involving participants with fluctuating or partial capacity must describe how ongoing consent was monitored throughout the study.

1.3.2. Inducements and coercion. Authors must disclose all incentives offered to participants and confirm that incentives were not of a nature or magnitude likely to unduly influence participation, particularly where participants may be economically vulnerable or institutionally dependent (e.g., prisoners, students, employees).

1.3.3. Pregnant women and fetuses. Research involving pregnant women must address risks to both the pregnant participant and the fetus. Authors must confirm that the research could not practicably be conducted in a non-pregnant population where equivalent scientific objectives could be achieved, and that the risks to the fetus are minimized and justified.

1.3.4. Indigenous and community populations. Research involving indigenous peoples or other communities with established collective interests must describe any community-level consultation or consent processes undertaken, in accordance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and relevant national frameworks. Individual consent does not substitute for community-level engagement where the latter is appropriate.

The editors reserve the right to request additional ethics documentation for any submission involving vulnerable populations and may seek specialist peer review where the adequacy of participant protections is uncertain.

1.4. Animal Research

For studies describing testing on regulated animals (i.e., all live vertebrates and/or higher invertebrates), authors must identify the committee or organization (e.g., author’s Institutional Ethics Review Board) approving the experiments in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript, which should also detail ethics approval information such as the name of the granting committee or organization and the approval identifiers, i.e., reference numbers. For research conducted on non-regulated animals, a statement should be made as to why ethical approval was not required. Authors should provide a proof of research ethics or ethics statement along with the submission. In the case that ethics approval identifiers are not available, written approval from the granting committee or organization must be provided as confidential supplemental file.

Authors are encouraged to follow the ARRIVE guidelines while reporting animal research，and to comply with the AALAS Guidelines and the ICLAS Guidelines where applicable. In the manuscripts, any additional guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals that were used in the experiment should be indicated. Briefly, the authors should also include animal details (e.g., species, gender, age, weight), animal housing conditions and husbandry information, and relevant steps taken to ameliorate pain and suffering of the animals in the “Materials and methods” section.

Specifically, experiments on non-human primates must be performed in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Weatherall report (The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research)

2. Application of Cell Lines

To ensure research reproducibility, authors must declare what cell lines were used in their experiment and the source or origin of all cell lines utilized. It is advisable to provide information regarding the authentication of cell lines and testing for mycoplasma contamination.

Generation of de novo cell lines derived from human tissue must be approved by the relevant ethics committee (or author’s Institutional Ethics Review Board). Authors must identify the committee or organization (e.g. author’s Institutional Ethics Review Board) approving the experiments in the Materials and Methods section of the manuscript, which should also detail ethics approval information such as the name of the granting committee or organization and the approval identifiers, i.e., reference numbers. Our journal requires that authors provide a proof of research ethics or ethics statement along with the submission. In the case that ethics approval identifiers are not available, written approval from the granting committee or organization must be provided as confidential supplementary file. Authors must confirm that they obtained the consent from the donor or next of kin for deriving a cell line from the donor.

3. Research involving plants

Experimental research and field studies on plants (either cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must comply with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.

Manuscripts must include a statement specifying the permissions or licenses obtained for the collection of plant or seed specimens. Authors are encouraged to comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and origin must be provided. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. Vouchers may be requested for review by future investigators to verify the identity of the material used in the study (especially if taxonomic rearrangements occur in the future). They should include details of the populations sampled on the site of collection (GPS coordinates), date of collection, and document the part(s) used in the study where appropriate. For rare, threatened or endangered species this can be waived but it is necessary for the author to describe this in the cover letter.

4. Dual-Use Research of Concern

Some research may have the potential for misuse and pose risks to public health, safety, or the environment. In such cases, publication will be considered only if the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

AccScience Publishing reserves the right to seek expert advice and to subject such manuscripts to additional review. Where risks are deemed to outweigh benefits, publication may be declined or, if already published, corrected, retracted, or removed.

Authors must comply with all applicable regulations and should disclose any dual-use considerations where relevant. Where potentially harmful materials or methods are involved, appropriate containment and biosafety measures must be described.

5.Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER)

Authors are encouraged to follow the SAGER guidelines （ Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines） and to incorporate sex and gender considerations where appropriate. The terms “sex” (biological attributes) and “gender” (socially constructed roles) should be used accurately and consistently.

• Definition of sex and gender

Sex - refers to biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles.

Gender - refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time.

• Applications of the guidelines: These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animals and cell lines.

Titles and abstracts should clearly indicate the sex(es) to which the study applies. Authors should describe whether sex or gender differences were considered in the study design, report disaggregated data where appropriate, and discuss the implications of these factors. If such analyses were not conducted, this should be justified in the Discussion section.

6. Research Data Policies

AccScience Publishing is committed to supporting open scientific exchange and enabling our authors to achieve best practices in sharing and archiving research data. We encourage all authors of articles published in AccScience Publishing journals to share their research data. Individual journal guidelines can be found at the journal ‘Instructions for Authors’ page. Data sharing policies concern the minimal dataset that supports the central findings of a published study. Data sharing should be consistent with ethical, legal, and privacy requirements.

Authors must include an “Availability of data” statement specifying where the data can be accessed or explaining any restrictions. A statement that data are "available on request" is insufficient unless access restrictions are clearly explained. Data supporting published findings should be deposited prior to acceptance. Shared data must comply with participant consent and confidentiality requirements. Authors are encouraged to deposit data in recognized discipline-specific or generalist repositories (e.g., Zenodo, Dryad, Figshare, or domain-specific archives) and to assign a persistent identifier (e.g., DOI) to deposited datasets. Data should be made available at the time of publication unless restrictions apply.

The “Availability of data” statement provide details regarding where data supporting reported results can be found, including links to publicly archived datasets analyzed or generated during the study.

Below are some recommended “Availability of data” statement:

• Data available in a publicly accessible repository

The data presented in this study are openly available in [repository name e.g., FigShare] at [doi], reference number [reference number].

• Data available in a publicly accessible repository that does not issue DOIs

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: [link/accession number].

• Data available on request due to restrictions (privacy or ethical concerns)

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to [insert reason here].

• Third-party data

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data was obtained from [third party] and are available [from the authors/at URL] with the permission of [third party].

• Data sharing not applicable

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

• Data is contained within the article or supplementary material

The data presented in this study are available in [mention ‘article’ and/or ‘supplementary file’ as appropriate].

7. Trial Registration

AccScience Publishing supports initiatives to improve reporting of clinical trials. This includes prospective registration of clinical trials in suitable publicly available databases. In line with ICMJE guidelines, manuscripts submitted to its journals should report clinical trials that have already been registered.

Publication of study protocols reduces the risk of non-publication of research findings and facilitates methodological discussion, and is encouraged by a number of AccScience Publishing journals. If the study protocol for a trial has been published, then it should be cited in the manuscript. 

Authors are strongly encouraged to pre-register clinical trials with international clinical trials register and cite a reference to the registration in the Methods section. Suitable databases include clinicaltrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and those listed by the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Approval to conduct a study from an independent local, regional, or national review body is not equivalent to prospective clinical trial registration. AccScience Publishing reserves the right to decline any paper without trial registration for further peer-review. However, if the study protocol has been published before the enrolment, the registration can be waived with correct citation of the published protocol.

8. Conflict of Interest Policy

AccScience Publishing requires authors to declare all conflict of interests or competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘Conflict of interest’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests. Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by, or may be perceived to be influenced by, their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) no conflict(s) of interest”. The Editor may ask for further information relating to competing interests.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer-review process if a competing interest exists.

8.1. Financial Competing Interests

Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

• Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
• Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
• Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.
• Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies (GPP2022), which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies. AccScience Publishing will not publish advertorial content.

8.2. Non-Financial Competing Interests

Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests.

8.3. Author’s Declaration of Conflict of Interest

At the time of submission, authors must declare any (potential) conflicts or competing interests with any institutes, organizations or agencies that might influence the integrity of results or objective interpretation of their submitted works. Conflicts of interest can be divided into two categories: financial and non-financial.

Authors should declare financial conflict of interest based on the following aspects:

• Author relation with the funding body and any potential conflicts of interest should be declared if the organization may gain or lose financially through publication of the article. Disclosure should also include all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to authors or their institution on authors’ behalf over the 36 months before submission of the relevant work.
• Any changes to the employment status of authors in any organizations, including resignation, current employment in another organization, and anticipated employment, should be declared if the organization may gain or lose financially through the article publication.
• Ownership of stocks or shares by the authors in any organizations should be declared if author(s) may gain or lose financially through the article publication.
• Receiving consultation fees or other forms of remuneration (including reimbursements for attending conferences) from organizations should be declared if the organization may gain or lose financially as a result of article publication.
• Status of patents or patent applications (either awarded or pending) filed by the authors or their institutions should be declared if their value may be influenced by the article publication. Patent application number, patent applicant, name of inventor(s), application status, and specific aspect of paper covered by the patent application’s specification and/or claims should be disclosed.

Authors should declare any (potential) non-financial conflicts of interest and declare any unpaid roles or relations that may influence the decision on the article publication. This includes, but is not limited to, unpaid role in a government or non-governmental organization, unpaid role in an advocacy or lobbying organization, and unpaid advisory position in a commercial organization.

8.4. Reviewer’s Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Assigned reviewers should declare competing interests arising from dealing with and reviewing the assigned submission. Since we adopt double-blind peer review in most of our journals and assume that the author identity has been completely masked to the best of our effort, the most important question that could reasonably be perceived as interfering with reviewer’s peer-review of the manuscript is: Could he/she profit or be negatively impacted financially by the peer review of the assigned manuscript?

If the reviewer’s answer to this question is “yes,” he/she should immediately inform the handling editor.

8.5 Conflict of Competing Interests Involving In-House Journal Editors

In-house journal editors who have competing interests arising from handling a submission should withdraw themselves from handling the submissions any further during the pre-check stage.

8.6. Competing Interests Involving Academic Editors

Academic Editors such as Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists. 

In addition, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include, but is not limited to, having previously published with one or more of the authors, and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.

Authors who are at the same time serving the Editorial Board as an Academic Editor must declare their role in the “Conflict of interest” section on the submitted manuscript. Their manuscripts will be assigned to another Academic Editor for overseeing peer review. These submissions are subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript.

Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial consideration.

8.7. Editorial Staff

All AccScience Publishing journal editorial staff are required to declare to their employer any interests — financial or otherwise — that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence. AccScience Publishing has a strict policy of editorial independence in individual acceptance decisions, and editorial standards of quality and significance should never be compromised.

9. Authorship

Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfil the criteria below (adapted from McNutt et al.,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115; licensed under CC BY 4.0): 

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception OR design of the work; OR the acquisition, analysis, OR interpretation of data; OR the creation of new software used in the work; OR have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author's contribution to the study); AND have agreed both to be personally accountable for the author's own contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Co-authors can be included if they fulfill all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section.

 

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript.

9.1. Corresponding Authors

Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission, including the names and order of authors, and that all authors receive the submission and all substantive correspondence with editors, as well as the full reviews, verifying that all data, figures, materials (including reagents), and code, even those developed or provided by other authors, comply with the transparency and reproducibility standards of both the field and journal.

This responsibility includes but is not limited to: (i) ensuring that original data/original figures/materials/code upon which the submission is based are preserved following best practices in the field so that they are retrievable for reanalysis; (ii) confirming that data/figures/materials/code presentation accurately reflects the original; and (iii) foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data/materials/code described in the work. The corresponding author should be responsible for managing these requirements across the author group and ensuring that the entire author group is fully aware of and in compliance with best practices in the discipline of publication.

The corresponding author must also disclose any editorial or writing assistance and ensure appropriate acknowledgment. Any authorship changes across manuscript versions must be explained. It is not the role of editors to determine or arbitrate authorship; where agreement among authors cannot be reached, the institution(s) where the work was conducted will be asked to investigate. Authorship disputes will otherwise be handled in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

To discourage ghost authorship, corresponding authors must reveal as appropriate whether the manuscript benefited from the use of editorial services that, if unacknowledged, might constitute an undisclosed conflict of interest. Examples include use of an editor from an organization that may have a vested interest in slanting the results or reliance on a technical writer at a level that would warrant authorship credit. These situations might be addressed by including a statement in the acknowledgments, by describing the effort in the “Materials and methods” section, or by adding an author.

The involvement of scientific (medical) writers or anyone else who assisted with the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers should be acknowledged explicitly in the ‘Acknowledgments’ or ‘Author contributions’ section as appropriate.

Corresponding authors should indicate whether any authors on earlier versions have been removed or new authors added and why. It is incumbent on the corresponding author to ensure that all authors (or group/laboratory leaders in large collaborations) have certified the author list and contribution description, that all authors who deserve to be credited on the manuscript are indeed identified, that no authors are listed who do not deserve authorship credit, and that author contributions, where they are provided, are expressed accurately.

Any potential authorship disputes brought to the editors’ attention will be handled in line with COPE guidelines.

10. Publication Ethics

AccScience Publishing follows the procedures of COPE. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated, and authors are expected to cooperate fully with any investigation. Where necessary, institutions and funding bodies may be consulted. Submitting the same work to multiple journals simultaneously (duplicate submission) is prohibited.

Our journals follow COPE’s procedures for dealing with potentially unethical behavior by authors, reviewers, or editors. All ASP editorial staff are trained in how to detect and respond to ethical problems.

Ethical issues raised by readers of the journal will be investigated by the editorial office following procedures recommended by COPE. Disputes on the validity of research reported in published papers can be settled by the Editorial Board. For disputes around authorship, data ownership, author misconduct, etc., where necessary, we will refer to external organizations such as a university ethics committee. Authors are asked to respond to any substantiated allegations made against them.

To manage authorship disputes, we follow COPE guidelines. Typically, if all authors agree, the authorship can be updated via a Correction. If not, we require an authoritative statement from the authors' institution(s) about who qualifies for authorship.

10.1. Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (FFP), as defined by ICMJE and COPE. Fabrication is the invention of data or results; falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results, such that the research record does not accurately represent the work performed; plagiarism is the appropriation of another's ideas, processes, results, or words without proper attribution.

Self-plagiarism (text recycling), which is the reuse of substantial portions of one's own previously published work without attribution, is also prohibited. Manuscripts will be screened for textual similarity, and authors may be required to provide clarification where significant overlap is identified.

Alleged misconduct will be investigated in accordance with COPE flowcharts. Where misconduct is confirmed, AccScience Publishing may notify the author's institution and relevant funding bodies, and may impose sanctions as set out in §15.

10.2. Image Integrity and Manipulation

Images and figures must accurately represent the original data. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable only if applied uniformly to the entire image and if they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information in the original. Specific feature enhancement or suppression is not permitted.

Blots, gels, and similar images must not be spliced, rearranged, or assembled from separate experiments without clear disclosure in the figure legend. Composite images must be clearly labeled as such. Inappropriate manipulation, including the removal of bands, the addition or deletion of elements, and the reversal of images, constitutes falsification and will be treated as misconduct.

All submitted images may be subjected to integrity screening. Authors may be asked to provide original, unprocessed data at any stage.

10.3. Post-publication corrections

AccScience Publishing is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published record. The following post-publication actions are governed by our policy on Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern (see §19 for more information).

All corrections and retractions are published promptly and linked bidirectionally to the original article. Authors are expected to contact the Editorial Office promptly upon discovery of any error in a published work.

10.4. Post-Publication Debate

AccScience Publishing supports post-publication debate as a means of maintaining the integrity and continued development of the scholarly record. Authors, readers, and other researchers may submit letters to the editor or formal post-publication comments addressing the findings or methodology of a published article. Such correspondence is subject to editorial review and, where appropriate, to peer review. Authors of the original article are provided the opportunity to respond. AccScience Publishing also recognizes external moderated post-publication platforms (such as PubPeer) as a legitimate channel for raising concerns. Concerns raised through these channels will be reviewed in accordance with this policy and COPE guidelines.

10.5. Appeals Policy

Authors who believe a “reject and decline resubmission” decision was reached in error may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office within three months of the decision. Appeals must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or handling editor’s comments, and must not simply restate the original submission. Appeals are first reviewed by the previous handling Academic Editor, who provides an advisory recommendation. This recommendation may be to accept the manuscript, to invite revised resubmission, to subject the manuscript to further peer review, or to uphold the original rejection. The Editor-in-Chief then considers the recommendation and reaches a final decision, from which no further appeal is possible. 

For full procedural details, see the Editorial Process page.

11. Publishing Standards and Guidelines

ASP follows the following guidelines and standards for its journals:

• ICMJE: Medically-related ASP journals follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The guidelines comprehensively cover all aspects of editing, from how the journal is managed to details about peer review and handling complaints. The majority of the recommendations are not specific to medical journals and are followed by all ASP journals.
• The CONSORTstatement covers the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. We encourage authors to verify their work against the checklist and flow diagram and upload them with their submission.
• TOPcovers transparency and openness in the reporting of research. Our journals aim to be at level 1 or 2 for all aspects of TOP. Specific requirements vary between journals and can be requested from the editorial office.
• FAIR Principlescover guidelines to improve the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse of data.
• PRISMAcovers systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors are recommended to complete the checklist and flow diagram and include it with their submission.
• ARRIVEcontains guidelines for reporting in vivo experiments. Authors are recommended to verify their work against the checklist and include it with their submission.
• iThenticateis an industry-standard software for plagiarism detection. Used during the first screening of a manuscript or pre-check, it can also be used at any stage of the peer review process and especially before the acceptance of a manuscript for publication.

Compliance with the standards and guidelines above will be taken into account during the final decision and any discrepancies should be clearly explained by the authors. We recommend that authors highlight relevant guidelines in their cover letter.

12. Utilization of AI-assisted technology

For authors

Authors must disclose any AI or large language model (LLM) tools used in preparing the manuscript. Disclosure of AI use for writing assistance must appear in the Acknowledgments section; disclosure of AI use for data collection, analysis, or figure generation must appear in the Methods section. In all cases, authors must specify the tool name, version, and nature of use. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all AI-assisted content and must carefully review and edit any AI-generated material. AI tools and large language models do not meet the criteria for authorship; accountability for the work rests solely with the named human authors.

For reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any AI tool use to the editor, must not share unpublished manuscripts with AI systems, and must not delegate the review itself to an AI tool; responsibility for the review remains with the individual reviewer. Editors may use AI-assisted tools in a limited capacity (e.g., to support language clarity or administrative tasks), provided that the confidentiality of the manuscript is strictly maintained; no manuscript content is uploaded to public or non-secure AI systems; and AI tools are not used to replace editorial judgment. Responsibility for all editorial judgements remains with the individual editor.

13. Copyright and Licensing

Upon acceptance, authors retain copyright in their work and grant AccScience Publishing a license to publish the article. We currently offer publication under Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) and Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any third-party material (including figures, tables, or text extracts) and for ensuring that all such material is appropriately licensed prior to submission. Evidence of permission may be requested.

14. Acknowledgments

The Acknowledgments section should identify all individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria, such as those providing technical assistance, writing support, or access to equipment or data. AI tool use for writing assistance must also be disclosed here (see §12).

All sources of funding must be acknowledged, including grant numbers and the names of funding agencies. Authors should state whether funders had any role in study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

15. Editorial Policy on References and Citations

Accurate, transparent, and responsible citation practices are fundamental to scholarly integrity. Authors are expected to adhere strictly to the following requirements when preparing and submitting manuscripts.

15.1. Author Responsibility

Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, authenticity, and relevance of all cited references. Specifically:

• Authors must ensure that all cited works are genuine, traceable, and accurately represented.
• Citations must faithfully reflect the original source’s findings, interpretations, and conclusions.
• Any misquotation, selective citation, citation misattribution, fabricated references, or citation manipulation constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics.
• Authors must verify all bibliographic details (e.g., author names, article title, journal name, year, volume, issue, page range, DOI) prior to submission.

The editorial office reserves the right to request supporting documentation for any cited work where concerns arise.

15.2. Relevance and Appropriateness of Citations

References must be:

• Directly relevant to the topic, methodology, and conclusions of the manuscript.
• Scientifically appropriate and supportive of the claims made in the text.
• Derived primarily from peer-reviewed and authoritative sources.

Authors should:

• Avoid excessive self-citation.
• Avoid unnecessary citation of articles from a particular journal without clear academic justification.
• Avoid citation padding (inclusion of references that do not meaningfully contribute to the manuscript).
• Ensure that citations are proportionate and justified in context.

Irrelevant or strategically inserted citations intended to manipulate citation metrics are unacceptable.

15.3. Accuracy and Completeness of Bibliographic Information

All references must:

• Be formatted according to the journal’s prescribed reference style.
• Include complete and necessary bibliographic details.
• Include DOI numbers where available.
• Use the official journal titles and correct author spellings.

Incomplete, improperly formatted, or inconsistent references may result in return of the manuscript for correction prior to peer review, and even after acceptance.

15.4. Prohibition of Fabricated or Manipulated References

The following practices are strictly prohibited:

• Fabricated or non-existent references.
• References that do not correspond to the cited content.
• Citation to retracted articles without appropriate disclosure and justification.
• Deliberate misattribution of authorship.
• Citation manipulation intended to artificially inflate citation metrics of specific authors, institutions, or journals.

Where misconduct is suspected, the journal will follow established ethical guidelines (e.g., principles consistent with those of the Committee on Publication Ethics).

15.5. Duplicate and Redundant References

Authors must:

• Avoid duplicate entries in the reference list.
• Ensure that multiple citations of the same work are consolidated under a single reference entry.
• Avoid redundant citation of different versions of the same work (e.g., preprint and final published version), unless scientifically justified.

15.6. Use of Preprints and Non-Peer-Reviewed Sources

If preprints, conference abstracts, guidelines, or online materials are cited:

• Their status (e.g., “preprint,” “ahead of print,” “unpublished data”) must be clearly indicated.
• Authors must ensure that such sources are stable, accessible, and appropriate.
• Where a preprint has subsequently been formally published, the final peer-reviewed version should be cited.

15.7. Citation of AI-Generated Content

AI tools may assist in manuscript preparation; however:

• AI systems must not be listed as authors.
• Authors are fully responsible for verifying the accuracy of any references suggested or generated by AI tools.
• AI-generated or hallucinated references are considered fabricated references and will be treated as misconduct.

15.8. Post-Publication Corrections

If citation errors are identified after publication:

• Authors are obliged to notify the editorial office promptly.
• The journal may issue a correction, expression of concern, or retraction depending on the severity of the issue.
• Significant citation-related misconduct may result in institutional notification.

15.9. Editorial and Peer-Review Oversight

The journal reserves the right to:

• Screen references using bibliographic verification tools.
• Remove inappropriate or irrelevant references.
• Request revision of citation patterns.
• Reject manuscripts where citation practices fail to meet ethical or scholarly standards.

16. Preprints

Authors may submit works already released as preprints to the journal, as long as the papers are not under peer-review and have not been published elsewhere and are formatted and styled according to journal’s requirements. Authors should disclose in cover letter and in “Further disclosure” section in the back matter document if the submitted works have already been uploaded onto a pre-print server (include accessory ID and/or DOI).

Preprint versions remain the intellectual property of the author. Authors must ensure that posting a preprint does not conflict with any embargo policies of the journal. Manuscripts previously posted as preprints may be submitted, provided they are not under concurrent review elsewhere. Authors must disclose preprint status at submission. Accepted preprint servers include bioRxiv, medRxiv, SSRN, Research Square, and other recognized discipline-specific platforms. Authors must provide the preprint DOI or URL at submission.

Following publication of the final version, authors must update the preprint record to include a link to the published article and the published DOI. The posted preprint must not be revised to incorporate peer-review changes prior to formal acceptance of the manuscript. Following acceptance and publication of a preprint paper, authors must indicate on the preprint server that the relevant paper has already been published in the (named) journal and point readers to the published articles.

17. Confidentiality, Editorial Authority, and Reviewer Selection

AccScience Publishing operates a rigorous peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. The peer review type, reviewer selection criteria, editorial decision-making process, and handling of Special Issue submissions are described in full on the Editorial Process page.

• Submitted works will only be processed, handled, viewed, and/or evaluated by handling editors, academic editors, reviewers, and production editors during the peer-review phase.
• Our editors can reject any papers at any time before publication, including after acceptance, if concerns arise about the integrity of the work.
• For primary research articles, in general, two or three external reviewers (not members of the journal’s Editorial Board) are invited for peer review. Editorial Board members may be consulted for more comprehensive evaluations if needed, in addition to the external reviewers, provided that they have relevant expertise and no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary materials containing additional information to aid the understanding of work described in the manuscript is also subjected to peer-review. Accessory documents such as research ethics proof, study participant consent form, copyright clearance proof and documents that might contain author-identifiable information and/or do not directly aid in understanding the work to be reviewed are not subjected to peer review.

18. Editorial Independence

Manuscripts are accepted by selected Academic Editor based on feedback and recommendations by reviewers—particularly external reviewers for primary research articles—after a rigorous peer-review process. Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scientific merit and are the responsibility of the Academic Editors. In-house journal editors (i.e., employed by AccScience Publishing) are not involved in editorial decision-making.

• The suitability of the selected reviewers;
• The adequacy of the reviewer comments and author’s response;
• The overall scientific quality of the paper.

In all of our journals and in every aspect of our operation, ASP policies are informed by the mission to make science and research findings open and accessible as widely and rapidly as possible.

19. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

AccScience Publishing is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published record.

19.1. Publisher and Editor Responsibilities

The Publisher and Editors are jointly responsible for maintaining the integrity of the published record through fair and timely investigations of alleged misconduct, transparent processes, and appropriate corrective actions.

19.2. Corrections

Corrections are issued for honest errors that affect interpretation but do not invalidate overall findings. Examples include errors in figures or tables, mathematical errors that do not affect conclusions, incorrect affiliations, and minor methodology description errors. The Publisher and Editor review correction requests promptly and publish corrections in a timely manner. Corrections are linked bidirectionally with the original article and indexing services are notified.

19.3. Retractions

ASP follows COPE retraction guidelines. Retractions are issued to correct the literature and alert readers to publications with serious concerns about integrity, validity, or reliability. Grounds for retraction include data fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, research conducted without ethical approval, unreproducible findings without adequate explanation, unethical authorship practices, and duplicate publication without disclosure.

Retractions may be initiated by authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Publisher, authors' institutions or employers, funding agencies, or readers with compelling evidence. When authors refuse to retract despite clear evidence, the Editor or Publisher will issue the retraction independently.

All retraction notices include the title formatted as “Retracted: ” followed by the original article title, complete citation, identification of who is retracting, clear and specific reason, date of retraction, and whether authors agree or disagree. Retracted articles remain online permanently with “RETRACTED” watermarks on every page, prominent banners, and clear links to retraction notices.

19.4. Expressions of Concern

Expressions of Concern are issued when credible concerns require investigation but findings are incomplete. The Publisher and Editors will provide updates on investigation status and resolve concerns as promptly as possible, replacing the expression with a retraction, correction, or withdrawal based on findings.

Decisions to retract, correct, or issue an expression of concern are made by the handling Academic Editor or Editor-in-Chief; AccScience Publishing, in its role as publisher, supports and gives effect to editorial decisions and does not override them for commercial or other non-editorial reasons. All corrections and retractions are published promptly and linked bidirectionally to the original article. Authors are expected to contact the Editorial Office promptly upon discovery of any error in a published work.

20. Inclusive and Bias-Free Language

AccScience Publishing is committed to inclusive, bias-free, and respectful language throughout the publication process. Authors should use language that does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.

When reporting research involving human participants, authors should use person-first or identity-first language as appropriate to the group being described. For guidance on the distinction between sex and gender, see §5. Generalizations, stereotypes, and stigmatizing language must be avoided.

Authors are encouraged to consult the APA Inclusive Language Guidelines and the SAGER Guidelines when preparing manuscripts.

21. Archives Policies

AccScience Publishing collaborates with Portico as a key long-term preservation partner to ensure the future availability of scholarly content published in electronic form. Authors of articles published in ASP journals may self-archive the submitted (preprint) version of the article at any time and may self-archive the accepted version after an embargo period.