Authorship
The order of authorship should be determined through mutual consultation among all authors prior to submission and should not be altered post-submission. Any necessary changes require a written statement signed by all authors confirming their agreement with the revised authorship. To be listed as an author, an individual must meet all of the following criteria: ① Participation in the conception and design of the manuscript, or in the analysis and interpretation of data; ② Drafting or revising the manuscript's key theories or main content; ③ Reviewing the manuscript in response to editorial suggestions, addressing academic queries, and consenting to the publication of the paper; ④ Assuming responsibility for the integrity of the research work, in addition to their own research contributions. Other contributors to the paper (e.g., experimental technical support) should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section. Individuals who solely contributed to funding acquisition or data collection should not be listed as authors, nor should those who merely managed the research. For articles with collective authorship, the affiliated institution should be listed under the title, and the primary responsible individual should be clearly identified. The corresponding author's name, academic qualifications, professional title, research direction, and email address should be footnoted on the first page of the manuscript. There should generally be no more than two corresponding authors, as determined by the submitter.
Experimental Subjects
Any animal experiments involving vertebrates or advanced invertebrates must comply with all institutional and national animal protection laws, guidelines, and policies, and must be described in the "Methods" section of the article. Clinical studies involving human subjects must obtain informed consent from each participant. All clinical trials must adhere to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Withdrawal/Retraction
Manuscripts with significant errors or academic misconduct will be rejected/withdrawn at any stage of the publication process. If an erroneous manuscript has been published, and the error is minor and does not affect the overall results and conclusions of the study, a correction notice will be published in the most recent issue. If the error is due to editorial or publishing personnel, the issue's table of contents will include the title of the correction notice, which will be published on the next available paginated edition, clearly and completely describing the correction. If serious errors or academic misconduct are identified, the article will be rejected/withdrawn at any stage of the publication process, including post-publication. If suspected falsification is detected, the journal will conduct further investigations and notify the author's institution or regulatory authority for assistance.
Editorial Decisions
The key criterion for manuscript acceptance in this journal is the originality of the content. Editorial decisions are based not only on the academic validity of the article's content but also on other factors, including but not limited to, the standard of writing.
Peer Review Process
Peer review and editorial scrutiny are the primary mechanisms for ensuring the quality of published articles in this journal. The editorial board consists of the basic and clinical medical experts with extensive academic and publishing experience. The manuscript editing process is as follows:
1. Manuscripts are received through the online submission system.
2. Initial editorial review to verify that the manuscript content meets the submission requirements and to cross-check for issues such as duplicate submissions and plagiarism. If the manuscript does not meet the submission requirements, it will be returned to the author for revision and resubmission.
3. If the manuscript meets the submission requirements, 1 or 2 experts in the relevant field are selected from the editorial board members for online review based on the manuscript's content and theme.
4. If the review experts determine that the manuscript's quality is subpar or its content does not align with the journal's aims and scope, they may decline to review the manuscript.
5. Peer review experts submit their review comments and feedback recommendations (acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, rejection) to the editor.
6. Based on the peer review experts' comments and feedback recommendations, the managing editor makes an editorial decision.
7. The peer review process is double-blind, meaning that reviewers can not see the authors' information, and authors can not see the reviewers' identities.
Just Accepted