The journal is committed to maintaining transparency, impartiality, editorial independence, and public trust throughout the submission, peer-review, editorial decision-making, publication, and post-publication processes.<\/p>\n
All individuals involved in the evaluation, editorial handling, publication, or oversight of scholarly content\u2014including authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, and other persons participating in editorial decisions\u2014are expected to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, their professional judgment, objectivity, or decision-making.<\/p>\n
The existence of a personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, or other relevant relationship or interest does not, in itself, imply improper influence, bias, or misconduct. However, such interests must be disclosed transparently when they could reasonably be considered relevant to the evaluation, interpretation, editorial handling, or publication of a manuscript.<\/p>\n
Transparent disclosure enables editors, reviewers, authors, and readers to assess the possible relevance of competing interests and allows the journal to manage such interests appropriately while protecting the integrity and independence of the scholarly record.<\/p>\n
The journal therefore applies the principles of transparency, disclosure, impartiality, and appropriate management of competing interests to all participants in the editorial and publication process.<\/p>\n
For the purposes of this policy, the terms conflict of interest<\/strong> and competing interest<\/strong> are used to describe circumstances in which a secondary interest, relationship, or activity could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, a person’s professional judgment, objectivity, or decision-making in relation to a manuscript or published work.<\/p>\n Such circumstances may arise when a person’s primary responsibilities\u2014such as conducting and reporting research accurately, providing an independent peer review, making an impartial editorial decision, or safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record\u2014intersect with personal, professional, financial, institutional, commercial, academic, intellectual, or other interests.<\/p>\n The existence of a competing interest does not necessarily mean that bias or inappropriate influence has occurred. The purpose of disclosure is to allow relevant interests to be identified, assessed, and, where necessary, appropriately managed.<\/p>\n Conflicts of interest may be:<\/p>\n A conflict may therefore exist even when there is no evidence that an individual’s judgment has actually been influenced. Perception is relevant because confidence in the fairness and independence of the publication process depends not only on actual impartiality but also on the reasonable appearance of impartiality.<\/p>\n All participants in the editorial and publication process are expected to disclose relevant interests when they could reasonably be considered connected to the manuscript or editorial decision. When there is uncertainty as to whether a relationship, activity, or interest should be disclosed, disclosure is preferred<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The journal will assess disclosed interests according to their nature, proximity, significance, and relevance to the manuscript or editorial activity. Disclosure does not automatically result in exclusion from authorship, peer review, editorial handling, or publication; appropriate management will depend on the circumstances.<\/p>\n Relevant competing interests may include, but are not limited to, the categories described in the following sections.<\/p>\n Financial and commercial interests may create, or may reasonably be perceived as creating, competing interests when they are related to the subject matter of a manuscript, the research under evaluation, or an organization that could benefit from its publication, interpretation, or outcome.<\/p>\n Relevant interests may be held directly by an individual or may arise through professional, institutional, contractual, or other relationships. They may include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Financial interests should be disclosed when they are sufficiently related to the manuscript or its subject matter that an informed reader, reviewer, or editor could reasonably consider them relevant when assessing the individual’s objectivity or independence.<\/p>\n The receipt of research funding or other financial support does not, in itself, indicate inappropriate influence, bias, or misconduct. However, relevant sources of support and relationships must be disclosed transparently.<\/p>\n Where applicable, authors must also describe the role of the funder, sponsor, or commercial organization in the design of the study, collection and analysis of data, interpretation of results, preparation or review of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the work for publication.<\/p>\n If a funder or sponsor had no role in these activities, this should be stated explicitly.<\/p>\n When there is uncertainty as to whether a financial relationship is sufficiently relevant to require disclosure, disclosure is preferred.<\/p>\n Non-financial interests may create, or may reasonably be perceived as creating, competing interests even when no direct financial benefit is involved. Such interests may arise from personal, professional, academic, institutional, intellectual, or other relationships that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, an individual’s objectivity or independence.<\/p>\n Relevant non-financial interests may include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n The existence of a professional relationship, shared research interest, institutional affiliation, or difference of scientific opinion does not automatically constitute a competing interest. The relevant consideration is whether the relationship or circumstance is sufficiently close, direct, or significant that an informed third party could reasonably question the individual’s impartiality.<\/p>\n Similarly, scientific disagreement, methodological criticism, or support for a particular scientific hypothesis should not, by themselves, be treated as conflicts of interest. They may become relevant when accompanied by personal rivalry, direct professional competition, advocacy, institutional interests, or other circumstances that could reasonably affect independent judgment.<\/p>\n Non-financial interests should be disclosed when they could influence, or could reasonably be perceived as influencing, the evaluation, interpretation, editorial handling, or publication of the work.<\/p>\n When uncertainty exists as to whether a non-financial interest is sufficiently relevant to require disclosure, disclosure is preferred. The journal will assess the nature, proximity, and significance of the relationship or circumstance and determine whether disclosure alone is sufficient or whether additional measures, such as reassignment of an editor or reviewer, are appropriate.<\/p>\n Authors are responsible for providing complete, accurate, and transparent disclosure of all financial and non-financial interests, relationships, activities, or circumstances that could reasonably be considered relevant to the submitted manuscript or to the interpretation of its findings.<\/p>\n Disclosure is required for all manuscript types<\/strong>, including original research articles, reviews, short communications, case reports, methodological papers, perspectives, editorials, and other scholarly contributions, where applicable.<\/p>\n Authors must declare relevant competing interests at the time of submission. Disclosures must be reviewed and, where necessary, updated during peer review, revision, acceptance, and prior to publication if circumstances change or new relevant interests arise.<\/p>\n Each author is individually responsible for identifying and disclosing their own competing interests. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:<\/p>\n The corresponding author’s coordinating role does not remove the individual responsibility of each co-author for the accuracy and completeness of their own disclosure.<\/p>\n Authors should consider whether an informed reader, reviewer, or editor could reasonably regard a relationship or interest as relevant to the work. Authors should not withhold disclosure solely because they believe that an interest is minor, indirect, unrelated to the conclusions, or unlikely to have influenced their judgment.<\/p>\n Relevant interests may include financial relationships, professional or institutional affiliations, intellectual property interests, personal or professional relationships, academic competition, advocacy roles, or other circumstances described elsewhere in this policy.<\/p>\n Where uncertainty exists as to whether an interest or relationship should be declared, disclosure is preferred<\/strong>. Authors may contact the editorial office for guidance when the relevance of a potential competing interest is unclear.<\/p>\n Disclosure of a competing interest does not automatically prevent submission, peer review, acceptance, or publication. The journal will assess the nature, relevance, and significance of the disclosed interest and determine whether transparency through disclosure is sufficient or whether additional editorial measures are required.<\/p>\n Where a relevant competing interest exists, authors must provide sufficient information to allow the editors and, where appropriate, readers to understand the nature of the relationship. Vague statements that do not identify the relevant relationship or entity may be returned for clarification.<\/p>\n Authors must not knowingly provide incomplete, misleading, or false competing-interest declarations. Failure to disclose a relevant interest may be evaluated in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics procedures and, if identified after publication, may require appropriate post-publication action.<\/p>\n Authors are also responsible for ensuring consistency between their Conflicts of Interest<\/strong>, Funding<\/strong>, and Role of Funders<\/strong> statements. Funding information should not be omitted from the competing-interest declaration when the relationship is also relevant to the interpretation or independence of the research.<\/p>\n All manuscripts submitted to the journal must include a dedicated Conflicts of Interest<\/strong> statement, regardless of manuscript type and regardless of whether any competing interests exist.<\/p>\n The statement must reflect the relevant interests of all authors<\/strong> and must be consistent with the information provided during submission and with the manuscript’s Funding<\/strong> and Role of Funders<\/strong> statements, where applicable.<\/p>\n When none of the authors has a relevant financial or non-financial competing interest, the manuscript should include the following statement:<\/p>\n The authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n For a single-author manuscript, the corresponding wording should be:<\/p>\n The author declares no conflict of interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n Authors should not use a no-conflict declaration when a relationship, activity, or interest exists that could reasonably be considered relevant to the work. When uncertainty exists, disclosure is preferred.<\/p>\n When one or more authors have relevant competing interests, the declaration must provide sufficient information to allow editors and readers to understand the nature and relevance of the relationship.<\/p>\n The statement should identify, where applicable:<\/p>\n Where different authors have different competing interests, these should be identified separately and attributed clearly to the authors concerned.<\/p>\n Examples may include:<\/p>\n Example 1 \u2014 Employment<\/strong><\/p>\n Author A is an employee of XYZ Pharmaceuticals, which develops products related to the subject of this study. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/em><\/p>\n Example 2 \u2014 Consultancy or Advisory Role<\/strong><\/p>\n Author B has received consultancy fees from ABC Biotechnologies. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/em><\/p>\n Example 3 \u2014 Intellectual Property<\/strong><\/p>\n Authors C and D are named inventors on a patent application related to the technology described in this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/em><\/p>\n Example 4 \u2014 Multiple Relevant Interests<\/strong><\/p>\n Author E has received research support from Company X and has served as a paid scientific advisor to Company Y. Author F owns shares in Company Z. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.<\/em><\/p>\n These examples are illustrative and are not intended to represent an exhaustive list of circumstances requiring disclosure.<\/p>\n A Funding statement<\/strong> and a Conflicts of Interest statement<\/strong> serve different purposes and should not be treated as interchangeable.<\/p>\n Receipt of research funding does not automatically constitute a competing interest. However, when the funding relationship, sponsor involvement, or another associated relationship could reasonably be relevant to the interpretation or independence of the work, it should also be appropriately reflected in the Conflicts of Interest statement.<\/p>\n Authors must ensure that disclosures concerning funding, sponsorship, employment, commercial relationships, intellectual property, and the role of funders are internally consistent throughout the manuscript and submission materials.<\/p>\n The existence of a disclosed competing interest does not automatically prevent a manuscript from being considered, peer reviewed, accepted, or published.<\/p>\n The editorial team will assess the nature, relevance, proximity, and significance of the disclosed interest and may, where appropriate:<\/p>\n The purpose of disclosure is to enable appropriate assessment and management of competing interests, not to imply misconduct merely because a relevant relationship exists.<\/p>\n Declarations that are incomplete, ambiguous, excessively general, or inconsistent with information provided elsewhere in the manuscript or submission materials may be returned to the authors for clarification before the editorial process proceeds.<\/p>\n Authors must not knowingly omit, conceal, or misrepresent relevant competing interests.<\/p>\n If a materially incomplete or misleading declaration is identified after publication, the journal will assess the matter in accordance with its publication ethics and post-publication policies and may issue a correction, updated disclosure, editorial notice, expression of concern, or other appropriate action depending on the circumstances.<\/p>\n Funding disclosure and conflict-of-interest disclosure are related but distinct requirements. Authors must report transparently all sources of financial, material, institutional, or other support that contributed directly to the research or preparation of the manuscript.<\/p>\n Funding information should identify, where applicable:<\/p>\n When no external funding or material support was received, authors should state this explicitly.<\/p>\n For example:<\/p>\n This research received no external funding.<\/strong><\/p>\n or, where appropriate:<\/p>\n The authors received no external financial or material support for this research.<\/strong><\/p>\n Authors must describe the role of the funder, sponsor, or supporting organization, where applicable, in:<\/p>\n If the funder or sponsor had no role in these activities, this should be stated explicitly.<\/p>\n For example:<\/p>\n The funder had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; preparation of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.<\/strong><\/p>\n Where a funder or sponsor participated in one or more of these activities, the nature and extent of that involvement must be described accurately.<\/p>\n Authors must retain appropriate scientific and editorial independence in the conduct, analysis, interpretation, reporting, and publication of their research.<\/p>\n At least the authors responsible for the analysis and reporting of the study must have appropriate access to the data necessary to verify the findings and support the conclusions presented in the manuscript.<\/p>\n Funding or sponsorship agreements must not improperly restrict authors from:<\/p>\n Agreements that give a funder or sponsor inappropriate control over the interpretation or publication of research findings are incompatible with the principles of scientific independence expected by the journal.<\/p>\n Sponsors may review a manuscript before submission when this has been agreed for legitimate purposes, such as verification of confidential information or intellectual property considerations, provided that such review does not result in inappropriate suppression, alteration, or delay of scientifically valid findings.<\/p>\n Receipt of research funding does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n However, funding relationships may also constitute competing interests when the funder or sponsor has a financial, commercial, institutional, or other interest in the results, interpretation, or publication of the research.<\/p>\n Where such a relationship exists, it must be disclosed both in the appropriate Funding<\/strong> information and, when relevant, in the Conflicts of Interest<\/strong> statement.<\/p>\n Authors must ensure that the Funding, Role of Funders, and Conflicts of Interest statements are complete and internally consistent.<\/p>\n If relevant funding, sponsorship, or material support is identified during peer review but has not been disclosed appropriately, the journal may request clarification or correction before further editorial consideration.<\/p>\n If materially incomplete or inaccurate funding information is identified after publication, the journal will assess whether the omission affects the transparency, interpretation, or integrity of the published work and may issue an appropriate correction or other post-publication notice where necessary.<\/p>\n Peer reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, confidentially, and solely on their scientific and scholarly merits.<\/p>\n Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must consider whether any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, intellectual, commercial, or other relationship or circumstance could affect, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.<\/p>\n Reviewers should disclose relevant competing interests to the handling editor before accepting the assignment whenever there is uncertainty about their ability to provide an independent evaluation.<\/p>\n Potential conflicts may include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Affiliation with the same university, research institution, hospital, company, or other large organization does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n The relevant consideration is the proximity and nature of the relationship. Reviewers should disclose situations involving the same department, laboratory, research group, closely connected organizational unit, shared project, hierarchical relationship, or other circumstances that could reasonably raise questions regarding independence.<\/p>\n The handling editor will determine whether the disclosed relationship is compatible with an independent review.<\/p>\n Scientific disagreement with an author’s hypothesis, methodology, interpretation, or previous work does not, by itself, constitute a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n Reviewers are expected to evaluate research critically, and legitimate scientific disagreement is an essential part of peer review.<\/p>\n However, reviewers should disclose circumstances involving direct professional rivalry, significant personal disputes, competing unpublished work, or other relationships where scientific disagreement is accompanied by interests that could reasonably compromise, or appear to compromise, impartiality.<\/p>\n The existence of a potential competing interest does not automatically disqualify a reviewer.<\/p>\n Where a possible conflict exists, the reviewer should provide sufficient information to allow the handling editor to assess its nature, proximity, and significance.<\/p>\n Depending on the circumstances, the editor may:<\/p>\n When uncertainty exists, disclosure is preferred<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Reviewers should not independently determine that a potentially relevant conflict is too minor to disclose when an editor could reasonably consider it relevant.<\/p>\n If a relevant conflict becomes apparent after a reviewer has accepted an assignment or begun reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer must inform the handling editor promptly.<\/p>\n The reviewer should not continue the evaluation until the editor determines whether the review may proceed.<\/p>\n If necessary, the reviewer may be released from the assignment and the manuscript reassigned to another reviewer.<\/p>\n If a relevant conflict becomes apparent only after the review has been submitted, the reviewer should notify the editorial office promptly so that the editor can determine whether the report may still be considered in the editorial decision.<\/p>\n Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents.<\/p>\n Reviewers must not use unpublished information, ideas, data, methods, results, intellectual property, or other confidential material obtained through peer review for:<\/p>\n This obligation applies irrespective of whether the manuscript is subsequently accepted, rejected, withdrawn, or published.<\/p>\n Reviewers must not delay, obstruct, or influence the review process for the purpose of obtaining academic, professional, commercial, or competitive advantage.<\/p>\n Reviewers are responsible for making a good-faith assessment of their own competing interests and for providing complete and accurate disclosure when relevant.<\/p>\n Failure to disclose a significant competing interest may result in the review being disregarded, removal of the reviewer from the evaluation process, or other appropriate action by the journal.<\/p>\n A reviewer who is uncertain whether a relationship or circumstance constitutes a conflict should contact the editorial office before proceeding with the review.<\/p>\n Editors must conduct all editorial duties with integrity, impartiality, independence, confidentiality, and transparency.<\/p>\n Before taking editorial action on a manuscript, editors must consider whether any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, intellectual, commercial, or other relationship or circumstance could affect, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, their impartiality.<\/p>\n Editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived competing interest relevant to a manuscript and must not independently continue handling a submission when such a conflict could reasonably call their objectivity into question.<\/p>\n Relevant conflicts may include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Affiliation with the same university, hospital, research institution, company, or other large organization does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n However, editors must disclose and normally avoid handling manuscripts involving authors from the same department, laboratory, research group, closely connected organizational unit, or other setting where professional proximity could reasonably raise concerns regarding independence.<\/p>\n Particular consideration should be given to shared grants, current projects, hierarchical relationships, recent collaborations, or other direct professional connections.<\/p>\n An editor who has a relevant competing interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent editorial judgment must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.<\/p>\n Editorial responsibility must be reassigned to another appropriately qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.<\/p>\n The conflicted editor must not participate in:<\/p>\n Where technically and operationally feasible, the conflicted editor should also be excluded from access to confidential editorial records associated with the decision-making process.<\/p>\n Not every professional or institutional relationship automatically requires recusal.<\/p>\n The relevant consideration is whether the nature, proximity, significance, or timing of the relationship could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, independent editorial judgment.<\/p>\n When the significance of a potential conflict is uncertain, the editor should disclose the circumstances to the Editor-in-Chief, another senior independent editor, or the editorial office before taking further editorial action.<\/p>\n The conflict should then be assessed independently, and an appropriate decision should be made regarding continued handling or reassignment.<\/p>\n When uncertainty remains, protection of editorial independence should take priority.<\/p>\n If a relevant competing interest becomes apparent after an editor has begun handling a manuscript, the editor must disclose the conflict promptly and cease further substantive editorial action until the matter has been assessed.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, the manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor.<\/p>\n The newly assigned editor may review previous editorial actions, including reviewer selection, reviewer reports, revision requests, and other decisions, to determine whether the process remains fair and reliable or whether any step should be repeated.<\/p>\n If the conflict becomes apparent only after a final decision has been made but before publication, the journal may arrange an independent review of the editorial process before proceeding.<\/p>\n If a relevant undisclosed editorial conflict is identified after publication, the journal will assess whether the conflict could have materially affected reviewer selection, peer-review assessment, editorial handling, or the final decision.<\/p>\n The journal may conduct an independent review of the editorial process and, where necessary, take appropriate corrective action in accordance with its publication ethics and post-publication policies.<\/p>\n The existence of an undisclosed editorial conflict does not automatically invalidate the published work; any action will depend on the nature and significance of the conflict and its potential effect on the integrity of the editorial process.<\/p>\n Editors must make decisions based on the scientific and scholarly merit of the manuscript, methodological and ethical soundness, quality of reporting, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and the integrity of the research.<\/p>\n Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:<\/p>\n Editors must not use confidential information obtained through editorial handling for personal, academic, professional, financial, competitive, or commercial advantage.<\/p>\n Editors are responsible for making a good-faith assessment of their own competing interests and for disclosing relevant circumstances promptly.<\/p>\n Where an editorial conflict results in recusal or reassignment, the journal should maintain an appropriate internal record of the action taken in order to support transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the editorial process.<\/p>\n Failure to disclose a significant competing interest may result in removal of the editor from the manuscript, independent review of editorial actions already taken, and, where appropriate, further action under the journal’s editorial and publication ethics procedures.<\/p>\n Submission of a manuscript by the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, an Editorial Board member, a member of the journal staff, or any other individual involved in the journal’s editorial process does not confer any advantage, preferential treatment, or exemption from the journal’s scientific, ethical, or editorial standards.<\/p>\n Such manuscripts must undergo the same editorial screening, peer-review requirements, revision procedures, and publication criteria as manuscripts submitted by authors who have no editorial role within the journal.<\/p>\n A manuscript submitted by an individual with an editorial role at the journal must be assigned to another appropriately qualified editor who:<\/p>\n The submitting editor, Editorial Board member, or journal staff member must have no influence over the choice of handling editor.<\/p>\n Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or co-author<\/strong>, the manuscript must be handled entirely by another senior editor or other appropriately qualified independent editor who has full decision-making authority for that submission.<\/p>\n The submitting editor or Editorial Board member must be excluded from all substantive stages of the editorial evaluation, including:<\/p>\n The submitting editor or Editorial Board member must interact with the journal solely in their capacity as an author and must not use editorial privileges, internal access, or professional authority to influence the evaluation of the manuscript.<\/p>\n Manuscripts submitted by editors or Editorial Board members must undergo independent external peer review in accordance with the journal’s standard peer-review policy.<\/p>\n Reviewer selection must be conducted exclusively by the independent handling editor.<\/p>\n Reviewers should be selected according to scientific expertise, independence, and absence of relevant competing interests.<\/p>\n The submitting editor or Editorial Board member must not:<\/p>\n Where additional reviewers are required, they must likewise be selected independently.<\/p>\n The editorial decision must be based solely on the scientific quality, methodological and ethical soundness, quality of reporting, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and the independent peer-review assessment of the manuscript.<\/p>\n The independent handling editor must have genuine authority to:<\/p>\n The editorial status, seniority, or institutional influence of an author must not affect the decision.<\/p>\n When more than one author of a manuscript holds an editorial role at the journal, all such individuals must be excluded from the editorial process.<\/p>\n If the manuscript involves several members of the journal’s senior editorial structure, responsibility must be assigned to an editor who is sufficiently independent of all authors involved.<\/p>\n Where internal editorial independence cannot reasonably be assured, the journal may appoint an external qualified academic editor or seek another independent mechanism of editorial oversight.<\/p>\n The same principles apply to manuscripts submitted by journal staff members or other individuals who have access to internal editorial systems, workflows, reviewer information, or decision-making processes.<\/p>\n Such authors must not use privileged access to:<\/p>\n Where technically feasible, access permissions should be restricted to prevent inappropriate access to confidential editorial information concerning the manuscript.<\/p>\n The journal should maintain an internal record indicating that the manuscript was subject to independent editorial handling and identifying the editor responsible for the process.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, the published article may include an editorial disclosure indicating that an author holds an editorial role at the journal and that the manuscript was handled independently.<\/p>\n For example:<\/p>\n Author A is a member of the Editorial Board of Biointerface Research in Applied Chemistry. The author had no involvement in the peer-review process or editorial decision for this manuscript, which was handled independently by another editor.<\/strong><\/p>\n Such disclosure is intended to promote transparency and does not imply that the author’s editorial position affected the evaluation or publication of the work.<\/p>\n Manuscripts submitted by editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, or other individuals involved in the editorial process must meet the same requirements applied to all other submissions, including requirements concerning:<\/p>\n Editorial position must never be used to bypass, shorten, weaken, or otherwise modify the journal’s normal scientific and ethical evaluation procedures.<\/p>\n The journal is committed to maintaining clear separation between editorial decision-making and the financial, administrative, institutional, commercial, or strategic interests of the publisher and other external parties.<\/p>\n Editorial decisions must be made independently and must be based on the scientific and scholarly merit of manuscripts, methodological and ethical soundness, quality and transparency of reporting, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and the integrity of the research.<\/p>\n The publisher, owners, sponsors, advertisers, donors, institutional partners, service providers, commercial entities, or other external parties must not influence or attempt to influence:<\/p>\n The publisher may provide administrative, financial, legal, technical, technological, production, archiving, dissemination, and other operational support necessary for the functioning and sustainability of the journal.<\/p>\n Such responsibilities must remain distinct from scientific and editorial decision-making.<\/p>\n The publisher may contribute to:<\/p>\n However, the publisher must not determine whether an individual manuscript is accepted or rejected on the basis of financial, commercial, reputational, institutional, or other non-scientific considerations.<\/p>\n Editorial authority over individual manuscripts must remain with the journal’s independent editorial structure.<\/p>\n Advertising, sponsorship, commercial partnerships, donations, institutional relationships, service agreements, or other financial arrangements must be managed separately from editorial assessment and publication decisions.<\/p>\n The existence, continuation, or value of a commercial or institutional relationship must not depend on favorable editorial treatment of manuscripts, authors, institutions, products, services, or research outcomes.<\/p>\n Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:<\/p>\n Advertising, where present, must be clearly distinguishable from editorial and scientific content.<\/p>\n Advertising arrangements must not influence:<\/p>\n Editors must not receive instructions from advertisers concerning the publication, rejection, modification, or positioning of scholarly content.<\/p>\n Advertising should not be presented in a manner that could reasonably imply endorsement by the journal of a product, service, company, or commercial claim.<\/p>\n Where scholarly content is associated with external sponsorship, the nature of the sponsorship and any relevant financial or institutional relationships must be disclosed transparently.<\/p>\n Sponsored research must remain subject to the same editorial, peer-review, ethical, and scientific standards applied to other submissions.<\/p>\n A sponsor must not be permitted to:<\/p>\n Any legitimate involvement of a sponsor in study design, data analysis, manuscript preparation, or other aspects of the research must be described transparently in the relevant Funding and Role of Funders statements.<\/p>\n Editorial decisions must not be made for the primary purpose of increasing citation counts, journal rankings, bibliometric indicators, media attention, website traffic, commercial attractiveness, or other performance metrics.<\/p>\n Editors must not request unnecessary citations to the journal or other publications for the purpose of manipulating citation-based indicators.<\/p>\n The anticipated citation potential, publicity value, controversy, or reputational benefit of a manuscript must not override scientific quality, ethical requirements, or relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.<\/p>\n Where the publisher, an owner, a member of publisher management, or another individual with organizational authority has a relevant interest in a manuscript, that interest must not affect the editorial process.<\/p>\n Such individuals must not participate in:<\/p>\n Where necessary, editorial handling should be assigned to an independent editor with no relevant conflict.<\/p>\n Editors must be able to make scientifically and ethically justified decisions without inappropriate pressure from the publisher, authors, institutions, sponsors, advertisers, partners, or other external parties.<\/p>\n Concerns regarding inappropriate interference with editorial independence should be documented and referred to an appropriate independent senior editor or journal governance mechanism.<\/p>\n Where external pressure conflicts with the journal’s scientific, ethical, or editorial responsibilities, protection of the integrity of the scholarly record must take priority.<\/p>\n Any relevant financial, commercial, institutional, or sponsorship relationship associated with published content must be disclosed transparently where such information is necessary for readers to assess potential competing interests.<\/p>\n The journal will maintain appropriate separation between its editorial functions and the financial or operational activities necessary to support publication.<\/p>\n Editorial independence is a core principle of the journal and applies to all stages of manuscript evaluation, peer review, publication, and post-publication oversight.<\/p>\n Institutional or organizational affiliation alone does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest.<\/p>\n Large universities, hospitals, research institutes, companies, governmental organizations, and other institutions may include individuals who have no direct professional relationship and whose independent judgment is unlikely to be affected by a shared affiliation.<\/p>\n However, institutional relationships may constitute, or may reasonably be perceived as constituting, competing interests when the relationship between the individuals involved is sufficiently close, dependent, collaborative, hierarchical, or otherwise relevant to the manuscript or editorial decision.<\/p>\n Relevant circumstances may include, but are not limited to:<\/p>\n Affiliation with the same university, hospital, research institute, company, or other large organization should not, by itself, be considered sufficient to establish a competing interest.<\/p>\n The assessment should consider factors such as:<\/p>\n A distant institutional connection without meaningful professional interaction will not normally require exclusion from peer review or editorial handling.<\/p>\n Participation in the same grant, research project, consortium, or funded program may create a relevant competing interest when the individuals work closely together, share responsibility for research outputs, or have a common professional or financial interest in the outcome.<\/p>\n The existence of funding from the same broad agency or participation in a very large consortium does not automatically constitute a conflict.<\/p>\n The relevant consideration is the nature and proximity of the professional relationship<\/strong>, rather than the institutional or funding label alone.<\/p>\n Current hierarchical or dependent professional relationships should normally be regarded as relevant competing interests.<\/p>\n Examples include:<\/p>\n Such relationships may create actual or perceived pressure and can compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent peer review or editorial judgment.<\/p>\n A competing interest may also arise where an individual’s institution has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the research.<\/p>\n Examples may include situations in which the institution:<\/p>\n Such circumstances should be disclosed even when the individual reviewer or editor does not personally receive a direct financial benefit.<\/p>\n Editors and reviewers are expected to consider not only whether they believe they can remain impartial, but also whether an informed third party could reasonably question their independence because of an institutional or organizational relationship.<\/p>\n When uncertainty exists, the relationship should be disclosed to the editorial office.<\/p>\n The journal will assess the nature, proximity, significance, and relevance of the relationship and determine whether:<\/p>\n Institutional affiliation should therefore be assessed contextually rather than through automatic exclusion rules.<\/p>\n Research involving commercially available products, proprietary technologies, patented materials, commercial services, industry-sponsored studies, or other research conducted in collaboration with commercial entities must be reported with appropriate transparency.<\/p>\n Authors must disclose any relevant financial, professional, institutional, contractual, intellectual property, or organizational relationships with sponsors, manufacturers, developers, service providers, patent holders, or other commercial entities connected to the research.<\/p>\n The existence of commercial sponsorship or the evaluation of a commercial product does not, in itself, prevent a manuscript from being considered or published. Such research must, however, meet the same standards of scientific independence, methodological rigor, ethical conduct, transparency, and reporting quality applied to all other submissions.<\/p>\n Where applicable, authors must disclose:<\/p>\n Such information must be consistent with the manuscript’s Funding, Role of Funders, and Conflicts of Interest statements.<\/p>\n Authors must describe the role of the sponsor or commercial partner in the research and publication process.<\/p>\n Where applicable, this includes involvement in:<\/p>\n If the sponsor or commercial partner had no role in these activities, this should be stated explicitly.<\/p>\n Authors must retain sufficient access to the data and information necessary to verify the findings, conduct an independent analysis, and support the conclusions reported in the manuscript.<\/p>\n Commercial agreements must not improperly restrict authors from:<\/p>\n Where a sponsor owns or controls the study data, authors must disclose the nature of that arrangement and describe the extent of their access to the data.<\/p>\n The journal may request additional information where necessary to determine whether the authors had sufficient scientific independence.<\/p>\n Sponsors or commercial partners may review manuscripts prior to submission for legitimate purposes, such as protection of confidential information, verification of factual information, or appropriate management of intellectual property.<\/p>\n Such review must not permit the sponsor to:<\/p>\n Any agreement that gives a commercial entity inappropriate control over scientific interpretation or publication is incompatible with the editorial and scientific independence expected by the journal.<\/p>\n Studies evaluating commercial products, drugs, devices, materials, technologies, software, analytical platforms, or professional services must be designed and reported objectively.<\/p>\n Authors should, where scientifically appropriate:<\/p>\n Trade names may be reported when necessary for reproducibility or identification, but their use should not imply endorsement by the journal.<\/p>\n Publication in the journal does not constitute endorsement, certification, or recommendation of any commercial product, technology, manufacturer, service, or proprietary claim.<\/p>\n Research involving patented or patent-pending technologies must include appropriate disclosure when authors, their institutions, sponsors, or other related parties hold relevant intellectual property interests.<\/p>\n Relevant circumstances may include:<\/p>\n The existence of intellectual property rights does not automatically preclude publication, but such interests must be disclosed when they could reasonably be considered relevant to the interpretation of the research.<\/p>\n The provision of drugs, devices, reagents, software, equipment, analytical services, technical assistance, or other research resources by a commercial entity must be disclosed when relevant.<\/p>\n Authors should specify whether such support was:<\/p>\n Receipt of commercially provided materials or services does not automatically constitute inappropriate influence, but transparency is required where the relationship could reasonably be considered relevant.<\/p>\n Editors may request additional information when necessary to assess the independence, integrity, or transparency of commercially sponsored or commercially relevant research.<\/p>\n Such information may include:<\/p>\n Where appropriate, the journal may seek independent methodological, statistical, ethical, or other expert assessment.<\/p>\n If adequate scientific independence or transparency cannot be demonstrated, the journal may decline to proceed with the manuscript.<\/p>\n Commercial value, market potential, sponsorship, product ownership, or the interests of a manufacturer or other commercial entity must not influence editorial decisions.<\/p>\n Sponsored and commercially relevant manuscripts must undergo the same independent editorial assessment and peer-review procedures as other submissions.<\/p>\n Neither a sponsor nor a commercial partner may select peer reviewers, influence reviewer recommendations, participate in editorial decisions, or condition financial or other support on a favorable publication outcome.<\/p>\n When an actual, potential, or perceived competing interest is disclosed or otherwise identified, the editorial team will assess the circumstances and determine whether any measures are necessary to protect the independence, fairness, transparency, and integrity of the editorial process.<\/p>\n The existence of a disclosed competing interest does not automatically imply bias, misconduct, or unreliability of the research. In many cases, transparent disclosure may be sufficient. In other situations, additional editorial safeguards may be necessary.<\/p>\n The journal will consider factors such as:<\/p>\n Depending on the circumstances, the journal may take one or more of the following measures:<\/p>\n The measures selected will be proportionate to the nature and significance of the competing interest.<\/p>\n Not all competing interests require exclusion from the editorial or publication process.<\/p>\n Where an interest is considered relevant but does not materially compromise independence, the journal may determine that transparent disclosure is sufficient.<\/p>\n For example, an author’s disclosed consultancy, intellectual property interest, or commercial relationship may be appropriately managed through clear disclosure to editors and readers, provided that the research remains scientifically independent and the relationship does not undermine the integrity of the study.<\/p>\n Similarly, a professional or institutional relationship involving an editor or reviewer may not require exclusion when the relationship is sufficiently remote and does not reasonably call impartiality into question.<\/p>\n Recusal, reassignment, or replacement will normally be appropriate when a competing interest creates a significant risk to independent judgment or could reasonably cause an informed third party to question the fairness of the process.<\/p>\n Examples may include:<\/p>\n Where the appropriate management of a competing interest is uncertain, the matter should be assessed by an individual who is independent of the conflict.<\/p>\n Depending on the circumstances, this may be:<\/p>\n An individual who is themselves involved in the competing interest must not make the final determination regarding whether that conflict is acceptable.<\/p>\n Where a significant competing interest requires editorial management, the journal should maintain an appropriate internal record of:<\/p>\n Such records support consistency, accountability, and the integrity of the editorial process.<\/p>\n Internal documentation will be treated confidentially, except where disclosure is required for transparency, publication ethics, legal obligations, or protection of the scholarly record.<\/p>\n Management decisions should be proportionate to the nature, relevance, and potential influence of the competing interest.<\/p>\n The journal will seek to apply this policy consistently while recognizing that conflicts of interest vary substantially in type and significance and therefore require contextual assessment.<\/p>\n The purpose of conflict management is not to penalize individuals for having legitimate professional, financial, institutional, or personal relationships, but to ensure that relevant interests are identified, disclosed, and managed in a manner that protects independent scientific and editorial judgment.<\/p>\n Where uncertainty remains, transparency and protection of editorial independence should take priority.<\/p>\n If a relevant competing interest that was not previously disclosed is identified during peer review, revision, editorial assessment, after acceptance, or at any stage before publication, the journal will assess the circumstances before determining the appropriate editorial response.<\/p>\n The journal may request a written explanation, clarification, supporting information, and an updated Conflicts of Interest declaration from the individual or individuals concerned.<\/p>\n Where necessary, the editorial process may be paused while the matter is evaluated.<\/p>\n The journal will consider:<\/p>\n The existence of an undisclosed competing interest does not automatically establish misconduct or invalidate the research. The editorial response will depend on the circumstances and potential impact of the omission.<\/p>\n If an author has failed to disclose a relevant competing interest, the journal may:<\/p>\n Where the omission appears inadvertent and the competing interest can be managed transparently, correction of the disclosure may be sufficient.<\/p>\n Where the omission is material or raises concerns regarding the independence or reliability of the research, further editorial assessment may be required before publication proceeds.<\/p>\n If a relevant competing interest involving a reviewer is identified before publication, the handling editor will assess whether the review can still be considered reliable and independent.<\/p>\n Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:<\/p>\n If the reviewer had access to confidential information while holding a significant undisclosed competing interest, the journal may also assess whether any breach of confidentiality or inappropriate use of privileged information occurred.<\/p>\n If a relevant competing interest involving an editor is identified before publication, the editor concerned must take no further substantive action on the manuscript until the matter has been independently assessed.<\/p>\n Where appropriate:<\/p>\n The conflicted editor must not determine independently whether their own undisclosed conflict is acceptable.<\/p>\n The journal distinguishes between an inadvertent failure to disclose and deliberate or materially misleading nondisclosure.<\/p>\n An inadvertent omission may result from misunderstanding, incomplete information, or a reasonable but incorrect assessment of relevance. Where such an omission is corrected promptly and transparently, the journal will normally seek a proportionate remedy.<\/p>\n More serious concerns may arise where there is evidence of:<\/p>\n Such conduct may be considered a breach of publication ethics.<\/p>\n Depending on the nature and significance of the undisclosed interest, the journal may:<\/p>\n Rejection will not be automatic solely because a competing interest was initially undisclosed. Any decision will be based on the seriousness of the omission, its potential effect on the manuscript or editorial process, and whether the issue can be adequately remedied before publication.<\/p>\n Significant undisclosed conflicts and the measures taken to address them should be documented internally by the journal.<\/p>\n Where the manuscript proceeds to publication, the final Conflicts of Interest, Funding, and Role of Funders statements must accurately reflect the relevant circumstances.<\/p>\n If necessary for transparency, the journal may require additional disclosure in the published article explaining a relevant relationship or the measures taken to ensure independent editorial handling.<\/p>\n When uncertainty exists, protection of editorial independence, transparency, and the integrity of the scholarly record should take priority.<\/p>\n If a relevant competing interest that was not previously disclosed is identified after publication, the journal will assess the matter promptly, fairly, and proportionately in order to determine whether the omission affects the transparency, interpretation, editorial history, or reliability of the published work.<\/p>\n The identification of an undisclosed competing interest does not automatically establish misconduct and does not, by itself, invalidate the published research.<\/p>\n The journal will consider, where relevant:<\/p>\n The journal may request an explanation, updated disclosure, supporting information, or other relevant documentation from the authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, sponsors, or other parties involved.<\/p>\n Where an undisclosed author competing interest is identified after publication, the journal will assess whether the omission relates only to incomplete disclosure or whether it raises broader concerns regarding the independence, conduct, analysis, interpretation, or reporting of the research.<\/p>\n Where the underlying research remains reliable and the primary concern is incomplete transparency, an updated disclosure or correction will normally be considered sufficient.<\/p>\n Additional investigation may be required where the undisclosed interest:<\/p>\n If a relevant undisclosed competing interest involving a peer reviewer is identified after publication, the journal will assess whether the reviewer’s independence may have been compromised and whether the affected review materially influenced the editorial decision.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, the journal may:<\/p>\n The presence of an undisclosed reviewer conflict does not automatically undermine the scientific validity of the article, but it may require additional review where confidence in the integrity of the original peer-review process has been materially affected.<\/p>\n If an undisclosed competing interest involving an editor is identified after publication, the matter must be evaluated independently of the editor concerned.<\/p>\n The journal may assess:<\/p>\n Where necessary, an independent senior editor or external expert may review the editorial record and determine whether the original process remains sufficiently reliable.<\/p>\n The conflicted editor must not participate in determining the appropriate response to their own undisclosed competing interest.<\/p>\n The journal distinguishes between inadvertent omission and intentional or materially misleading nondisclosure.<\/p>\n An inadvertent omission that does not materially affect the reliability or interpretation of the work may normally be addressed through an updated disclosure or correction.<\/p>\n More serious concerns may arise where there is evidence of:<\/p>\n Such circumstances may require formal investigation under the journal’s publication ethics procedures.<\/p>\n Depending on the nature, significance, and consequences of the undisclosed competing interest, the journal may take one or more appropriate actions, including:<\/p>\n Retraction will not be used solely because a competing interest was not disclosed.<\/p>\n Retraction may be considered where the undisclosed interest is associated with circumstances that materially undermine the reliability, integrity, or independence of the published research, including serious misconduct, manipulation of the editorial or peer-review process, suppression or distortion of material findings, or other circumstances in which correction alone would not adequately protect the scholarly record.<\/p>\n Where the research remains reliable and the principal problem is incomplete disclosure, a correction or updated declaration will generally be preferred.<\/p>\n An expression of concern may be considered where:<\/p>\n An expression of concern is an interim measure and does not represent a final determination of misconduct or unreliability.<\/p>\n Any public notice issued in relation to an undisclosed competing interest should clearly identify the article concerned and explain the nature of the correction or editorial action to the extent appropriate and supported by the available evidence.<\/p>\n Post-publication notices should be linked to the original article and form part of the permanent scholarly record.<\/p>\n The journal will avoid speculative or unnecessarily accusatory language and will distinguish clearly between established facts, unresolved concerns, and findings of formal investigations.<\/p>\n Post-publication action will be proportionate to:<\/p>\n The primary purpose of post-publication action is to ensure that readers have accurate information and that the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record are appropriately protected.<\/p>\n Conflict-of-interest information provided during submission, peer review, editorial assessment, or publication-ethics inquiries will be handled with appropriate confidentiality and accessed only by individuals who require the information for legitimate editorial, ethical, administrative, or legal purposes.<\/p>\n Information submitted in confidence may be reviewed, where necessary, by:<\/p>\n Individuals given access to confidential disclosure information are expected to use it only for the purpose for which it was provided and must not use such information for personal, professional, academic, competitive, financial, or commercial advantage.<\/p>\n Information necessary for readers to understand relevant competing interests will normally be included in the final published article through an appropriate Conflicts of Interest<\/strong>, Funding<\/strong>, Role of Funders<\/strong>, or other relevant disclosure statement.<\/p>\n Published disclosures should provide sufficient information to explain the nature of a relevant relationship without including unnecessary personal, confidential, or sensitive information.<\/p>\n Authors should therefore provide disclosures that are accurate and sufficiently specific to ensure transparency while avoiding information that is not relevant to the interpretation of the work.<\/p>\n Information provided solely for confidential editorial assessment will not normally be disclosed publicly when public disclosure is unnecessary for the transparency or interpretation of the published work.<\/p>\n Examples may include:<\/p>\n The journal will seek to limit disclosure of such information to what is reasonably necessary for the editorial or ethical purpose concerned.<\/p>\n Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed without exception.<\/p>\n The journal may disclose relevant information where disclosure is reasonably necessary to:<\/p>\n Where disclosure beyond the editorial team is necessary, the journal will seek to limit the information shared to what is relevant and proportionate to the purpose of the disclosure.<\/p>\n Competing-interest disclosures may occasionally contain personal, financial, professional, contractual, or other sensitive information.<\/p>\n The journal will seek to avoid unnecessary collection or publication of sensitive information and will request only information reasonably required to assess, manage, or disclose a relevant competing interest.<\/p>\n Information that is not necessary for public transparency should not normally be included in the published article.<\/p>\n Where appropriate, the journal may summarize a relevant relationship in the published disclosure rather than reproduce confidential documentation or unnecessary personal details.<\/p>\n Reviewers must not disclose competing-interest information, manuscript content, editorial correspondence, or other confidential material obtained through the peer-review process except to the journal where necessary for proper evaluation of the manuscript.<\/p>\n Editors must likewise protect confidential information obtained from authors and reviewers and must not disclose such information beyond those involved in legitimate editorial assessment unless disclosure is required under this policy or another applicable journal policy.<\/p>\n The confidentiality obligations associated with peer review continue after the editorial process has concluded, including after rejection, withdrawal, or publication of the manuscript.<\/p>\n Where a competing-interest issue leads to a post-publication inquiry, the journal will balance confidentiality with the need for transparency and protection of the scholarly record.<\/p>\n Public notices should disclose sufficient information to explain any correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial action without unnecessarily revealing confidential or sensitive information.<\/p>\n The journal will distinguish, where appropriate, between:<\/p>\n The journal will handle competing-interest information according to the principles of confidentiality, relevance, proportionality, transparency, and protection of the scholarly record.<\/p>\n Confidentiality should not be used to conceal information that readers reasonably require in order to understand a relevant competing interest. Conversely, transparency should not be used as a justification for unnecessary disclosure of personal or sensitive information that is unrelated to the interpretation or integrity of the published work.<\/p>\n Authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, journal staff, and other individuals participating in the submission, peer-review, editorial, publication, or post-publication process are individually responsible for identifying and disclosing relevant competing interests accurately, completely, and in a timely manner.<\/p>\n Each participant is responsible for considering whether any personal, professional, financial, institutional, academic, commercial, intellectual property-related, or other relationship or circumstance could reasonably be considered relevant to their role in the publication process.<\/p>\n Disclosure responsibilities apply not only at the beginning of an individual’s involvement with a manuscript but throughout the editorial and publication process.<\/p>\n Responsibility for disclosure rests primarily with the individual who holds the relevant interest or relationship.<\/p>\n Individuals should not rely solely on:<\/p>\n The fact that an interest is publicly known, disclosed elsewhere, or known informally to members of the editorial team does not remove the individual’s responsibility to disclose it through the appropriate journal process.<\/p>\n Each author is individually responsible for the accuracy and completeness of their own competing-interest disclosure.<\/p>\n The corresponding author has an additional coordinating responsibility to ensure that appropriate declarations are obtained from all authors and communicated accurately to the journal.<\/p>\n However, the corresponding author’s coordinating role does not transfer responsibility for an undisclosed personal interest from the individual author concerned.<\/p>\n Authors must review and, where necessary, update their disclosures if relevant circumstances change during:<\/p>\n If a relevant interest becomes known after publication, authors should inform the journal promptly.<\/p>\n Reviewers are responsible for evaluating their own ability to provide an independent and impartial assessment before accepting a review assignment.<\/p>\n A reviewer who identifies a possible competing interest must disclose it to the handling editor when it could reasonably be relevant to the review.<\/p>\n Reviewers must also notify the journal if a relevant conflict becomes apparent after accepting the assignment or after submitting the review.<\/p>\n Reviewers should not assume that the editor is already aware of a professional, institutional, collaborative, financial, or other relationship.<\/p>\n Editors and Editorial Board members are responsible for identifying and disclosing competing interests before taking substantive editorial action on a manuscript.<\/p>\n An editor must not determine unilaterally that a potentially significant personal conflict is irrelevant when an informed third party could reasonably question the editor’s independence.<\/p>\n Where uncertainty exists, the matter should be referred to another independent editor or appropriate journal authority for assessment.<\/p>\n Editors must also disclose relevant conflicts that arise or become apparent after editorial handling has begun.<\/p>\n Competing-interest disclosure is an ongoing responsibility.<\/p>\n Relationships and circumstances may change during the editorial process. For example:<\/p>\n\n
\nExample: an editor holds a financial interest in a company whose product is evaluated in the submitted manuscript.<\/em><\/li>\n
\nExample: a reviewer is currently negotiating a research collaboration with one of the authors.<\/em><\/li>\n
\nExample: an editor is asked to handle a manuscript submitted by a close recent collaborator.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
5.1. When No Competing Interests Exist<\/h3>\n
5.2. When Competing Interests Exist<\/h3>\n
\n
5.3. Examples of Appropriate Disclosure<\/h3>\n
5.4. Relationship Between Conflicts of Interest and Funding<\/h3>\n
5.5. Editorial Assessment of Disclosures<\/h3>\n
\n
5.6. Incomplete or Misleading Declarations<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
6.1. Role of Funders and Sponsors<\/h3>\n
\n
6.2. Author Independence<\/h3>\n
\n
6.3. Funding and Competing Interests<\/h3>\n
6.4. Undisclosed or Inaccurately Reported Funding<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
7.1. Institutional Relationships<\/h3>\n
7.2. Scientific Disagreement and Academic Competition<\/h3>\n
7.3. Disclosure and Editorial Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
7.4. Conflicts Identified After Accepting a Review<\/h3>\n
7.5. Confidential Information and Personal Advantage<\/h3>\n
\n
7.6. Responsibility of Reviewers<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
8.1. Institutional Relationships<\/h3>\n
8.2. Recusal and Reassignment<\/h3>\n
\n
8.3. Disclosure Versus Automatic Disqualification<\/h3>\n
8.4. Conflicts Identified After Editorial Handling Has Begun<\/h3>\n
8.5. Conflicts Identified After Publication<\/h3>\n
8.6. Editorial Independence<\/h3>\n
\n
8.7. Responsibility and Documentation<\/h3>\n
\n
9.1. Independent Editorial Handling<\/h3>\n
\n
9.2. Exclusion from the Editorial Process<\/h3>\n
\n
9.3. Peer Review<\/h3>\n
\n
9.4. Editorial Decision<\/h3>\n
\n
9.5. Multiple Editorial Authors<\/h3>\n
9.6. Manuscripts from Journal Staff or Individuals Involved in Editorial Operations<\/h3>\n
\n
9.7. Transparency and Documentation<\/h3>\n
9.8. Same Standards as All Other Submissions<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
10.1. Role of the Publisher<\/h3>\n
\n
10.2. Commercial and Institutional Influence<\/h3>\n
\n
10.3. Advertising<\/h3>\n
\n
10.4. Sponsorship and Sponsored Content<\/h3>\n
\n
10.5. Editorial Independence from Journal Metrics and Strategic Interests<\/h3>\n
10.6. Publisher or Owner Conflicts of Interest<\/h3>\n
\n
10.7. Protection of Editorial Decisions<\/h3>\n
10.8. Transparency<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
11.1. Same Institution Does Not Automatically Mean Conflict<\/h3>\n
\n
11.2. Shared Grants and Research Activities<\/h3>\n
11.3. Hierarchical and Dependent Relationships<\/h3>\n
\n
11.4. Institutional Interests in the Outcome<\/h3>\n
\n
11.5. Disclosure and Editorial Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
12.1. Identification of Commercial Relationships<\/h3>\n
\n
12.2. Role of Sponsors and Commercial Partners<\/h3>\n
\n
12.3. Author Access to Data and Scientific Independence<\/h3>\n
\n
12.4. Agreements Affecting Publication<\/h3>\n
\n
12.5. Evaluation of Commercial Products, Technologies, and Services<\/h3>\n
\n
12.6. Patented and Proprietary Technologies<\/h3>\n
\n
12.7. Commercially Provided Materials and Services<\/h3>\n
\n
12.8. Additional Editorial Review<\/h3>\n
\n
12.9. Editorial Independence<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
13.1. Possible Editorial Measures<\/h3>\n
\n
13.2. Disclosure May Be Sufficient<\/h3>\n
13.3. Circumstances Normally Requiring Recusal or Reassignment<\/h3>\n
\n
13.4. Independent Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
13.5. Documentation<\/h3>\n
\n
13.6. Proportionality and Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
14.1. Assessment of the Undisclosed Interest<\/h3>\n
\n
14.2. Undisclosed Interests of Authors<\/h3>\n
\n
14.3. Undisclosed Interests of Reviewers<\/h3>\n
\n
14.4. Undisclosed Interests of Editors<\/h3>\n
\n
14.5. Inadvertent Omission Versus Deliberate Concealment<\/h3>\n
\n
14.6. Possible Editorial Outcomes<\/h3>\n
\n
14.7. Documentation and Transparency<\/h3>\n
\n
15.1. Initial Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
15.2. Undisclosed Conflicts Involving Authors<\/h3>\n
\n
15.3. Undisclosed Conflicts Involving Reviewers<\/h3>\n
\n
15.4. Undisclosed Conflicts Involving Editors<\/h3>\n
\n
15.5. Inadvertent Omission and Deliberate Nondisclosure<\/h3>\n
\n
15.6. Possible Post-Publication Actions<\/h3>\n
\n
15.7. Retraction Is Not an Automatic Consequence<\/h3>\n
15.8. Expressions of Concern<\/h3>\n
\n
15.9. Transparency of Post-Publication Actions<\/h3>\n
15.10. Proportionality and Protection of the Scholarly Record<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
\n
16.1. Information Included in Published Articles<\/h3>\n
16.2. Information Provided Solely for Editorial Assessment<\/h3>\n
\n
16.3. Limits to Confidentiality<\/h3>\n
\n
16.4. Sensitive and Personal Information<\/h3>\n
16.5. Confidentiality in Peer Review<\/h3>\n
16.6. Post-Publication and Ethics Investigations<\/h3>\n
\n
16.7. Proportionality and Responsible Handling<\/h3>\n
\n
17.1. Individual Responsibility<\/h3>\n
\n
17.2. Responsibility of Authors<\/h3>\n
\n
17.3. Responsibility of Reviewers<\/h3>\n
17.4. Responsibility of Editors and Editorial Board Members<\/h3>\n
17.5. Continuing Duty to Update Disclosures<\/h3>\n
\n