I. Ethics Guidelines
1 Instructions for Authors
(1) Manuscripts submitted by authors must be original works. The submission and its key contents must not have been previously published, and multiple submission is prohibited. Plagiarism is not permitted, and any cited viewpoints must be clearly indicated with appropriate references. The data presented in the manuscript must be true and reliable, without deception, and academic misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism is strictly prohibited.
(2) All listed authors must have contributed to the research of the paper, and no individual who qualifies for authorship should be omitted. The corresponding author should ensure that publication of the paper has been authorized and agreed upon by all co-authors and that there are no authorship disputes. Any change in the order of authors prior to publication must be approved by all co-authors to ensure the accuracy of authorship.
(3) Information on funding for the research or the paper should be stated in the manuscript. Other sources of support for the publication, or individuals who provided assistance but do not qualify for authorship, should be appreciated in the acknowledgement section.
2 Instructions for Reviewers
(1) The evaluation of manuscripts should be objective and fair. Reviewers should provide clear comments on the academic quality of the manuscript and whether it meets the standards for publication, and should avoid perfunctory or ambiguous review comments.
(2) Reviewers should respect the existence of different academic viewpoints and refrain from making impolite, derogatory, or arbitrary comments. If serious academic misconduct is identified in a manuscript, it should be reported to the editorial office.
(3) If reviewers are not familiar with the research field of the manuscript, they should inform the editorial office accordingly. Reviewers may decline the review if there is a conflict of interest or any circumstance that may hinder an objective evaluation.
(4) Once the review invitation is accepted, the review should be completed within the specified time. If delays occur due to objective reasons, the editorial office should be informed in a timely manner.
3 Instructions for Editors
(1) Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair review process and eliminating bias. They should make every effort to arrange timely peer review and publication of submitted manuscripts, with particular attention to papers reporting significant findings to ensure timely publication.
(2) Editors should ensure the journal is published on schedule; that the content reported is novel, accurate, and reliable; and that priority is given to publishing research at the forefront of the discipline or on hot topics. The publication of papers involving falsification, plagiarism, or duplicate publication must be strictly avoided.
(3) Editors should establish and maintain a name list of competent and appropriate reviewers, monitor the performance of the reviewers and editorial board members, and record both the quality of their reviews and whether they complete review tasks on time.
(4) Editors should provide authors with timely feedback on peer review comments; support academic discussion and facilitate communication between authors and reviewers; maintain reviewer confidentiality under the “double-blind” mode; and disregard any impolite or defamatory review comments.
(5) Editors have the right to accept or reject manuscripts based on their significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal. Authors are allowed to appeal editorial decisions.
II. Conflict of Interest
XPG’s COI policy generally follows those of the COPE (https://publicationethics.org) recommendations. Conflicts of interest are secondary interests (e.g. personal, commercial, political, academic or financial) that may influence judgements on a primary decision, in this case what is published. XPG takes the view that any potential conflicts of interest must be recognized and stated. If there is doubt about the existence of a conflict, it is preferable to err on the side of disclosure.
This is not an exhaustive list of potential conflicts, rather an indication of the range of potential conflicts of interest:
1. Author COIs
Authors are required to complete the Author Statement Form and disclose any competing interests. Conflicts of interest/competing interests can be defined as factors which could influence the judgment of an author, reviewer or editors, and may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. Put simply, they are interests which, if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
2. Reviewer COIs
The journal employs a double-blind review process. However, editors will still try to avoid inviting individuals to review who have potential COIs. Editors will also attempt to honor authors’ requests to exclude potential reviewers, provided that the reason for exclusion is a true COI and that rigorous and comprehensive review is possible if these individuals are excluded. At the time they are invited to review, individuals must disclose any COIs that could bias their opinions, and they must disqualify themselves from reviewing when appropriate. If a COI becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must contact the journal office and, when appropriate, ask to be recused. The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:
? Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
? Being colleagues within the same section/department in the past 3 years
? Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the authors or being supervised/having been supervised by the authors
? Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
? Having a personal relationship (e.g. family, close friend) with the authors
? Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed
It is not considered a conflict of interest if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project or if they have co-organized an event.
3. Editorial Board Member COIs
Articles by Editorial Board members will be handled according to the usual process for that article type and undergo the same peer review process. In this case another editor would be appointed to manage the peer review process. If no editor can be identified who does not have a conflict of interest, then a guest editor may be invited to manage the manuscript. Any guest editor must have a good understanding of the journal.
4. Editor COIs
Editors will not act as the decision maker in articles with which they feel they have a conflict of interest, such as working with the authors or performing competing research. If the editor has not worked with the author for more than six months, then they may be eligible to manage the article. Some conflicts are insurmountable for editors, for example personal friendships, which will not have a time expiry. Knowledge of an author or being an acquaintance is not enough on its own to mean that the editor cannot manage the article. Editors should err on the side of not taking articles with which they may have a conflict of interest and discuss with the Editor-in-Chief any concerns about their own conflicts, so a decision can be made about the most suitable editor for the article.
III. Author Contribution
Before publishing scientific research results, please clarify the roles of all participants as contributors, which include 14 types: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing-original draft, and writing-review & editing.
Following the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) as outlined in the “Recommendations for the Conduct，Reporting，Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”, authorship must simultaneously meet the following four criteria:
(1) Make significant contributions to the conception or design of the study, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the study;
(2) Draft the research paper or critically revise it for important intellectual content;
(3) Approve the final version to be published;
(4) Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Only contributors who meet all four of these criteria should be credited as authors. Others who have contributed but do not meet all the above criteria should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section.
IV. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Guideline
1. GenAI cannot assume the corresponding responsibility of an author, and this journal does not accept GenAI, its products or teams listed as authors.
2. GenAI cannot be used to write entire papers or important parts of papers, such as methods, results, and interpretation and analysis of results. All content falling within the realm of scientific contribution or intellectual work should be completed by humans. If the main content of a paper is completed by GenAI, the editorial office will regard the case as academic misconduct.
3. If GenAI is used in the composition of papers, authors must disclose in detail how GenAI is used in the methods section. Authors are fully responsible for the content produced by GenAI tools, and are thus liable for any breaches of publication ethics or infringement.
4. GenAI must not be used to assist manuscript evaluation or decision-making process in the editorial office. It must be human editors who are responsible for the paper review, decision-making, and communication with authors. To avoid risks of infringement, privacy breach, and confidential breach, reviewers and editors are not allowed to upload manuscripts and supplementary materials to publicly available GenAI platforms during the paper review and editing process.
5. If authors violate GenAI usage policies in their scientific writing, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted. In severe cases, the journal will reject submission from the authors within two years. If reviewers violate GenAI policies during the review process, which results in information leakage or infringement, they will be prohibited from participating in review work and shall bear consequent responsibilities.
