Author Ethics

1. The author should be responsible for the authenticity of the paper and for cooperating with the editorial office to provide materials such as original images, original data, project proposal, project name, informed consent form of the research object, and approval documents from the ethics committee.

 2. The authors must submit a confirmation file issued by the research department of affiliation and a "Paper Copyright Exclusive License Agreement" signed by all authors when submitting the manuscript.

3. Authors should adhere to the "Five Prohibitions" principle of their papers: They are not allowed to have their papers written by third parties; It is not allowed to submit papers on behalf of third parties; Third parties are not allowed to modify the content of the paper; Do not provide false peer reviewer information; It is not allowed to violate the regulations for paper attribution (see Articles 4-7), and we firmly resist non substantial academic contributors from signing papers.

4. The signed authors must be a substantial contributor to the paper, including: ① those who have made significant contributions to the ideas or designs of the research work; Participate in the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of data; ② Drafting papers or participating in the revision of important content of papers; ③ Finalizers for the upcoming version; ④ Agree to take responsibility for all aspects of the research work to ensure that issues related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the paper are properly investigated and resolved. Those who only provide technical assistance or financial and material support to the paper should not be listed as authors, but they can be thanked in the acknowledgment.

5. In principle, the authorship should be sorted according to the contributions, which should be jointly agreed upon by the authorship of the paper and determined at the time of submission. After submission, the authorship and unit signature shall not be changed generally. If it is really necessary to change, the main person in charge of the paper (the lead author and correspondence author) shall submit a written change application to the editorial department, state the reasons, and be signed by all the authors (including the change of book name) for confirmation, and shall not change in the revised version without authorization.

6. In general, only one corresponding author is indicated in the paper. If the results of the paper come from collaborative research among multiple units, and if there is indeed more than one corresponding author, it can be increased as appropriate, generally not exceeding two. The added communication authors should be academic leaders from different research institutions or groups that collaborate on research.

7. The authors should indicate their name and affiliation when submitting the manuscript. The author's affiliation should be relevant to the research content of the paper. If not, the authors should explain their contributions to the research or supply a certificate proving that the author has indeed engaged in the research.

8. If the institutional unit to which the author belongs is inconsistent with the institutional unit that completed the topic selection, research scheme design, research work, and provided research conditions (such as graduate students leaving the training unit, further education students, visiting scholars, collaborative research, etc.), the institution that provided research conditions and completed research work shall be the first signatory unit.

9. The authors of clinical research papers should follow relevant guidelines (such as the randomized controlled trial report specification - CONSORT guideline, the non randomized controlled trial report specification - TREND, the observational study report specification - STRONG, the diagnostic accuracy study report specification - START, etc.). Clinical research papers should follow the "favorable principle" and "non-invasive principle" of bioethics. For clinical trials involving humans and some animal experiments, the author must provide proof of ethical review of the research plan, and for patients (subjects) involved, an informed consent form should be signed.

10. For experimental studies involving humans, the author must take various preventive measures to protect the privacy of the study subjects. The paper shall not involve personal identification information such as patient name and hospitalization ID number. For medical research using identifiable human body materials or data, the consent of the subject must be obtained in accordance with formal procedures, and the parts that can identify the patient's identity (especially the face) must be covered as much as possible in the paper.

11. For experimental research involving animals, the author must take various preventive measures to ensure that experimental animals are treated humanely and properly, and comply with the relevant provisions of the Guidelines for Ethical Review of Experimental animal welfare.

12. The author should declare whether there is a conflict of interest when submitting the article. If there is a conflict of interest, all economic interests that may have an impact on their research results should be explained (whether there is a commercial interest relationship between the research and the pharmaceutical company; whether the pharmaceutical company provides any financial support in experimental design and implementation, data processing, article writing and publication, etc.).

Reviewer Ethics

1. Review experts should adhere to the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and timeliness in making responsible review opinions on the manuscript, and shall not disclose the author's research content. 

2. When there is a conflict of interest between the reviewer and the author (such as family relationship, teacher-student relationship, alumni relationship, colleague relationship, competitive relationship), in order to ensure the fairness of the review, the reviewer should promptly declare the conflict of interest to the editorial department, and the editorial department should decide whether to avoid it.

3. When the reviewer discovers that the author's research is similar to their own, they shall not use the reviewer's convenience to suppress or belittle the author's paper.

4. Reviewers should review the manuscript in a timely manner according to the agreement. If they cannot review and return the manuscript on time, they should inform the editorial department in a timely manner and withdraw the review. They can recommend reviewers. Without the consent of the editorial department, reviewers are not allowed to entrust their own students, colleagues, etc. to review on their behalf.

5. When reviewers encounter previously reviewed manuscripts, they have the obligation to report the situation to the editorial department and fill in review opinions according to the journal inclusion standards.

Editorial ethics

1. Editors should handle each manuscript fairly, fairly, and promptly, and make a decision to accept or reject it based on the importance, originality, scientificity, readability, authenticity of research, and its relevance to the journal.

2. Editors should adhere to the principle of confidentiality, on the one hand, they should strictly keep the reviewer's information confidential; On the other hand, the author's research content should be kept confidential.

3. Editors should not be driven by interests to intervene in peer evaluation, and strive to ensure the independent evaluation of peer experts to ensure the fairness and impartiality of peer evaluation.

4. For peer review experts recommended by the author, the editor should verify the authenticity of their reviewer information and decide whether to use the recommended reviewer based on their research field and expertise, as well as whether there is a conflict of interest with the author. If the author requests to avoid an expert reviewing their manuscript and this requirement is reasonable, the editor should respect it.

5. When selecting paper reviewers, editors should try to avoid being in the same unit as the author, and should not choose named authors as reviewers.

6. When there is a conflict of interest between the editor and the author (such as kinship, teacher-student, alumni, colleague, or competitive relationships), they should avoid handling the manuscript.

7. Editors should treat the author's appeal with caution and organize collective discussions or request review experts to review it again.

8. Editors should consider publishing negative results obtained from scientific and rigorous research to avoid unnecessary duplication of research by other scholars.

9. Editors are responsible for avoiding academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and repeated publications, and should conduct two plagiarism checks and reviews on newly submitted and upcoming papers.

10. Editors have the obligation to remind authors of potential copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise after changes in authorship, affiliation, and order.

11. The editor should provide the author with detailed suggestions for revisions or reasons for rejection as much as possible.

12. Editors should respect the author's viewpoints and writing style, and key modifications made to the paper that involve academic viewpoints should be approved by the author.