Integrity at every
stage of publication.

Editorial principles

Fair review and editorial independence

Editors assess submissions without commercial influence and keep submitted material confidential. Manuscripts selected for review are evaluated by independent specialists with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers must provide objective, constructive reports, protect manuscript confidentiality, and decline an invitation when a competing interest could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their judgment.

The handling editor considers the reports and the manuscript as a whole; reviewer recommendations do not by themselves determine the decision. Acceptance is never guaranteed. The publisher supports editorial independence and does not allow subscription, commercial, or personal considerations to determine editorial outcomes.

Authorship and contributorship

Credit must reflect accountable contribution

Every listed author must have made a substantial scholarly contribution, approved the submitted version, agreed to be named, and accepted accountability for the integrity of their contribution. All people who meet these criteria should be included; honorary, guest, purchased, and ghost authorship are not acceptable. Contributions that do not justify authorship should be acknowledged with the contributor’s permission.

• The corresponding author confirms the author list and obtains every author’s approval before submission.
• A contribution statement describing each author’s role must accompany the manuscript; the CRediT taxonomy may be used.
• Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors require a reason and written agreement from all affected authors.
• The journal may pause review while an authorship dispute is resolved. Institutions, rather than editors, determine contested authorship where the parties cannot agree.

Conflicts of interest

Declare interests that could influence judgment

Authors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the work. This includes relevant employment, consulting, funding, ownership, patents, paid testimony, close collaborations, personal relationships, institutional roles, and strongly held academic or intellectual positions. Funding sources and the funder’s role must be stated. If no competing interests exist, authors should state this explicitly.

Reviewers and editors must disclose relevant interests promptly and recuse themselves when impartial assessment is not possible. A non-conflicted editor will reassign the manuscript. Undisclosed interests identified after publication will be assessed and may lead to a correction or other notice; retraction is reserved for cases in which the integrity or reliability of the article is materially affected.

Originality and research integrity

No plagiarism, duplicate submission, or manipulation

Submissions must be original, properly attribute all sources, and must not be under consideration by another journal. Plagiarism, unattributed reuse, redundant or duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, manipulated citations, false identities, paper-mill activity, and interference with peer review are prohibited. Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts, translations, conference versions, and earlier dissemination so that overlap can be evaluated.

The journal may use text-overlap and other integrity checks before or after publication. A similarity result is evidence to examine, not an automatic finding of misconduct. Concerns are assessed on their substance, and authors are normally given an opportunity to respond. When specialist investigation is needed, the journal may contact the authors’ institutions, funders, or other journals and will follow relevant COPE guidance.

Data, code, and image integrity

Preserve the evidence behind the result

Every manuscript must include a data availability statement, including when no new data or code were created. Where data, software, or computational material is necessary to validate a result, authors should deposit it in a stable repository and cite it with a persistent identifier whenever legal, ethical, and contractual conditions permit. Restrictions must be explained, and an appropriate controlled-access route should be described where possible. Authors must retain underlying material and provide it to the journal on reasonable request during an integrity assessment.

• Figures must accurately represent the underlying data and must not conceal, add, move, or selectively remove relevant information.
• Global adjustments to brightness, contrast, or colour are acceptable only when they do not obscure or misrepresent information.
• Composite images must be clearly separated and described; non-obvious processing must be disclosed in the caption or methods.
• Editors may request original, unprocessed files. Inability to provide them may delay review or prompt further investigation.

Research ethics and consent

Approval is required where people, animals, or protected data are involved

Research involving human participants, personal or confidential data, or animals must comply with applicable law and recognised disciplinary standards. The manuscript must name the approving ethics body, give the approval or exemption reference where one exists, and describe informed consent when applicable. If formal review was not required, authors must state why. Personal information must be minimised and de-identified, and consent for publication must be obtained whenever a person could be identifiable.

Authors are responsible for permissions covering third-party text, figures, datasets, software, and other protected material. The journal may request supporting approval, consent, registration, or permission documents and may reject work that does not meet appropriate ethical or legal standards.

Artificial intelligence tools

Human authors remain responsible

AI systems and large language models cannot be authors because they cannot approve the final work, hold rights, disclose interests, or accept accountability. Human authors are responsible for every part of the submission, including accuracy, attribution, originality, permissions, confidentiality, and the verification of citations and mathematical claims.

• Substantive use of generative or AI-assisted tools in writing, translation, image production, coding, data collection, or analysis must be disclosed at submission and in the manuscript.
• The disclosure must identify the tool and version, explain where and why it was used, and describe human verification. Routine spelling or grammar checking need not be declared.
• AI-generated or AI-altered images are not acceptable as evidentiary figures unless their use is part of the reported method, is fully described, and the authors can establish validity and rights.
• Reviewers and editors must not upload an unpublished manuscript or identifying review material to a public generative-AI service. Confidentiality applies throughout editorial assessment.

Undisclosed or inappropriate use will be assessed according to its effect on the reliability, originality, and confidentiality of the work, with reference to the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools.

Preprints and prior dissemination

A preprint does not prevent consideration

Posting a manuscript on a recognised preprint server or institutional repository does not by itself count as prior journal publication. A thesis, conference abstract, or working paper may also be considered when the submission contains a substantial, original journal contribution. Authors must disclose all earlier versions and provide links or identifiers at submission. Prior peer-reviewed publication of substantially the same work is not permitted.

Authors should not post a version that suggests acceptance before a decision is made. After publication, the preprint record should be updated with a citation and link to the Version of Record. Sharing of accepted and published versions remains subject to the journal’s copyright agreement.

Post-publication record

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions

Readers and authors may report a substantive error or concern at any time. The journal will assess whether the Version of Record remains reliable and will act in proportion to the issue. A correction is appropriate when an otherwise reliable article contains an error that affects interpretation, attribution, or indexing. An expression of concern may be used when serious questions remain unresolved during a lengthy or inconclusive investigation.

Retraction may be required when findings are unreliable, the work is plagiarised or redundantly published, the research is unethical, or serious manipulation has occurred. Notices will be clearly labelled, dated, freely accessible, linked in both directions with the article, and state the reason and responsible party. Retracted articles normally remain available with a prominent status notice to preserve the scholarly record; removal is reserved for exceptional legal, privacy, or safety reasons. The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Complaints, appeals, and allegations

Concerns are assessed fairly and without retaliation

A complaint should identify the manuscript, article, person, or process concerned and provide a clear account with relevant evidence. An appeal must explain a specific error in the editorial process or decision; disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient. New scientific material is normally considered through revision or a new submission rather than an appeal.

1. Submit. Send the manuscript or article identifier, the decision or conduct challenged, the grounds, and supporting evidence to the Editorial Office.
2. Screen. A non-conflicted editor acknowledges the matter, determines its scope, and may request further information.
3. Review. The journal checks the record and gives affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not responsible for the challenged decision whenever practicable.
4. Outcome. The reasoned outcome and any corrective action are communicated and recorded. Editorial action may be reconsidered if material evidence was overlooked or procedure was not followed.

Good-faith concerns are considered on their evidence whether named or anonymous. Confidentiality is protected as far as possible, subject to due process and law, and retaliation against complainants or whistleblowers is not tolerated. Institutions decide whether research misconduct occurred; the journal decides what action is needed for the submission or published record.

Submissions from editors and board members

Editorial status confers no advantage

Manuscripts authored by a Managing Editor, editorial board member, guest editor, their recent close collaborator, or a person with another significant relationship to the handling editor must follow the journal’s ordinary criteria and independent peer-review requirements. The conflicted person has no access to reviewer selection, reports, discussion, or the decision.

A non-conflicted editor assumes full responsibility for the process. If no suitable internal editor is independent, the journal appoints an appropriately qualified external handling editor. The same recusal procedure applies when a positive or negative relationship could reasonably create a perception of bias. Any relevant editorial relationship is disclosed with a published article.

Special issues and guest-edited collections

The same standards apply to every collection

Special issues must fall within the journal’s scope and are approved and overseen by a Managing Editor. Guest editors are selected after their identity, expertise, affiliations, and competing interests have been checked. They receive written responsibilities and must follow all journal policies. Calls for papers must not promise acceptance, and invited articles receive the same level of assessment as unsolicited submissions.

• The journal retains control of reviewer standards, editorial systems, policy enforcement, and the final publication decision.
• Submissions by a guest editor or close colleague are assigned to an independent editor; guest-editor and closely connected contributions must not dominate a collection.
• Funding, sponsorship, waivers, and relevant relationships are disclosed and do not influence decisions.
• The journal may audit review reports, reviewer expertise, decision patterns, and timelines, and may pause or cancel a collection if integrity concerns arise.

This procedure is informed by COPE’s best-practice discussion document for guest-edited collections.