Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG) is informed by and seeks to follow the applicable principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) in formulating the editorial policies for its journals. These policies - including Overview; Editorial Roles, Responsibilities, and Decision-Making Authority; Core Responsibilities of the Handling Editor; Core Responsibilities of the Scientific Editor; Core Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief; Publication Ethics and Academic Integrity; Peer-Review Process; Appeals and Complaints; Editorial Process; Ethics Statements; Open Access and Copyright Policy; Correction and Retraction; Digital Image Integrity; and Artificial Intelligence Tool Usage Policy - are described below.

To ensure rigorous, independent, consistent, and traceable editorial decision-making, BPG defines distinct but complementary responsibilities for the Handling Editor, Scientific Editor, and Editor-in-Chief.

The Handling Editor assumes overall responsibility for the editorial handling of an assigned manuscript, coordinates the peer-review process, evaluates the complete editorial record, and makes the First Post-Peer-Review Editorial Decision within the authority formally delegated by the journal. The Scientific Editor performs evidence-based verification of academic quality, editorial compliance, author revisions, and procedural records, and provides independently documented editorial recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the journal’s academic quality and editorial oversight, resolves material disagreements or escalated matters, and makes or confirms the Final Academic Decision for manuscripts proceeding to that stage.

Peer-review recommendations and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted assessment findings constitute supporting evidence and do not replace the independent judgment of human editors. All editors must protect manuscript confidentiality, disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, and maintain sufficient records to support editorial accountability and traceability. Academic-quality verification and editorial-compliance verification must remain separately identifiable and should, where operationally feasible, be performed by different Scientific Editors.

The Handling Editor is responsible for the overall editorial handling of an assigned manuscript and for making the First Post-Peer-Review Editorial Decision on the basis of the complete and verified editorial record. The core responsibilities of the Handling Editor are to:

(1) Oversee the handling of an assigned manuscript throughout the applicable editorial process.

(2) Select and invite independent external peer reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise and no relevant conflicts of interest.

(3) Review and confirm the peer reviewers’ identities, qualifications, subject-matter expertise, institutional affiliations, and potential conflicts of interest.

(4) Evaluate whether each peer-review report is sufficiently independent, relevant, comprehensive, evidence-based, and suitable for editorial decision-making.

(5) Review the human-verified findings of AI-assisted manuscript quality assessments and exclude unsupported, irrelevant, or unverified AI findings from editorial consideration.

(6) Integrate the initial academic assessment, valid peer-review reports, verified AI assessment findings, iThenticate similarity report, ethics-related documents, author declarations, and relevant editorial verification results.

(7) Make the First Post-Peer-Review Editorial Decision, which may include inviting revision, requesting supplementary peer review, or rejecting the manuscript, as appropriate.

(8) Clearly document the principal evidence, reasoning, and rationale supporting the editorial decision.

(9) Ensure that peer-review recommendations and AI-generated findings are treated as supporting evidence and are not used as the sole basis for the editorial decision.

(10) Escalate material disagreements, unresolved methodological or statistical concerns, ethical issues, authorship or data concerns, suspected research misconduct, and other significant risks to the Editor-in-Chief or the appropriate editorial authority.

If the Handling Editor has an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, the conflict must be disclosed promptly. The Handling Editor must take no part in reviewer selection, manuscript evaluation, correspondence, or decision-making concerning that manuscript. The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent and appropriately qualified editor, and the recusal and reassignment must be documented in the editorial record.

The Scientific Editor is responsible for conducting documented human verification of manuscript quality, editorial compliance, author revisions, and the completeness and consistency of the editorial record. The Scientific Editor provides independent editorial recommendations but does not replace the decision-making authority of the Handling Editor or the Editor-in-Chief.

4.1 Initial Checks by the Scientific Editor. The Scientific Editor conducts a compliance review of each new submission, assessing its fit with the journal’s scope, authorship and author information, ethics approval and informed consent, manuscript completeness, disclosure of AI use, and indicators of potential research or publication misconduct. When a submission does not meet the applicable requirements, the Scientific Editor may request additional materials or revisions, recommend rejection, or refer the matter for further investigation, as appropriate. These measures help ensure that only eligible manuscripts proceed to peer review.

4.2 Verification of Academic Quality. The Scientific Editor responsible for academic-quality verification shall:

(1) Independently evaluate whether the peer-review reports are valid, relevant, sufficiently comprehensive, and suitable for editorial decision-making.

(2) Verify the peer reviewers’ identities, qualifications, subject-matter expertise, institutional affiliations, and potential conflicts of interest.

(3) Verify whether the findings of each AI-assisted manuscript quality assessment are accurate, reasonable, relevant, sufficiently specific, and supported by evidence from the manuscript and its related records.

(4) Compare the initial submission with the revised manuscript and document relevant changes in academic and reporting quality.

(5) Determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the verified peer-review comments, editorial comments, and AI-identified issues.

(6) Identify important scientific, methodological, statistical, ethical, reporting, or internal-consistency issues that may have been overlooked by the peer reviewers or AI assessment.

(7) Determine whether the manuscript’s results are adequately supported by the reported methods and analyses and whether its interpretations and conclusions are justified by the evidence.

(8) Document unresolved issues, remaining limitations, and material risks.

(9) Provide an independent, evidence-based recommendation for acceptance, further revision, rejection, or additional peer review.

4.3 Verification of Editorial Compliance. The Scientific Editor responsible for editorial-compliance verification shall:

(1) Verify compliance with applicable requirements concerning research ethics, informed consent, protection of identifiable information, clinical trial registration, study registration, and relevant reporting guidelines.

(2) Verify the completeness and consistency of statements concerning author contributions, conflicts of interest, funding, data availability, use of AI tools, and other required disclosures.

(3) Check the manuscript type, title, abstract, keywords, main-text structure, terminology, abbreviations, statistical reporting, figures, figure legends, tables, supplementary materials, references, and citations against the applicable editorial requirements.

(4) Verify that required documents and manuscript files are complete, authentic where verification is required, mutually consistent, and suitable for publication processing.

(5) Confirm that verified corrections have been completed and that unresolved editorial-compliance issues are clearly documented.

(6) Ensure that editorial revisions have not unintentionally altered the authors’ scientific meaning, numerical results, interpretations, or conclusions.

(7) Refer any correction affecting data, authorship, ethics, interpretation, or conclusions for renewed academic review before the manuscript proceeds.

If a Scientific Editor has an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, the conflict must be disclosed promptly. The Scientific Editor must take no part in the verification, communication, recommendation, or other editorial processing of that manuscript. The relevant responsibilities must be reassigned to an independent Scientific Editor, and the recusal and reassignment must be documented in the editorial record. 

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the journal's academic quality control and editorial oversight. The core responsibilities primarily include the initial academic review and the final academic decision.

5.1 Initial Academic Review. After a manuscript passes the preliminary check, it proceeds to initial academic review under the overall supervision of the Editor-in-Chief. Based on the manuscript's subject area and specialty, the Editor-in-Chief may assign it to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member for an initial academic assessment. The assigned Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript's novelty, scientific significance, study design, methodological rigor, credibility of the data and study findings, reasonableness of the conclusions, ethical compliance, and suitability for external peer review, and shall provide academic review comments. After considering all relevant academic review comments and materials, the Editor-in-Chief makes or confirms the decision as to whether the manuscript qualifies to proceed to external peer review. Such assignment constitutes academic assistance only and does not transfer or diminish the Editor-in-Chief's overall supervisory responsibility or decision-making authority for the initial academic review.

5.2 Final Academic Decision. After considering the initial academic review comments, valid peer-review reports verified by the Scientific Editor, the results of AI-assisted academic quality assessments, the authors' revisions and any re-review, ethics approval documents, and other relevant quality-control materials, the Editor-in-Chief independently evaluates the manuscript's overall academic quality and makes or confirms the final academic decision to accept, request further revision, or reject the manuscript. When appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may seek academic assistance from an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member during the final academic review; however, such assistance does not transfer the Editor-in-Chief's authority or responsibility for the final academic decision. The Editor-in-Chief is accountable for the independence, impartiality, academic soundness, and traceability of the final decision. If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest concerning the manuscript, the conflict must be disclosed promptly, and the Editor-in-Chief must recuse themselves from the related handling, review, and decision-making.

6.1 Authorship Credit. Authorship credit must be assigned in accordance with the current ICMJE Recommendations. An author must meet all four criteria: (1) make substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; (2) draft the work or review it critically for important intellectual content; (3) approve the final version to be published; and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons who meet all four criteria should be identified as authors; contributors who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged appropriately. Further information can be found at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html and https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/284.

6.2 Co-first and Co-corresponding Authors. The policy for consideration and approval of co-first authorship and co-corresponding authorship is structured as follows.

6.2.1 Limitations on Co-first and Co-corresponding Authors. Requests for co-first authors or co-corresponding authors will be considered on a limited basis, and the final decision to allow or deny a request will be made case by case on the basis of the authors' detailed justification. No more than two co-first authors and two co-corresponding authors may be designated. Joint co-designations are not allowed; for example, a single author cannot be designated as both a co-first author and a co-corresponding author.

6.2.2 Co-first Authorship Statement. For co-first authors, a statement must explain and support the claim of equal contribution. This concise but sufficiently detailed statement will appear in the Author Contributions section. It should describe the authors' respective contributions to the design of the study, acquisition and analysis of data, and preparation of the manuscript, rather than relying solely on the label "first author."

6.2.3 Co-corresponding Authorship Statement. For co-corresponding authors, there should be a statement of support that justifies the equal contribution. This brief but detailed statement will be listed in the Author contributions section. Moreover, one of the two co-corresponding authors will be designated as the single person who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication processes (see #6.2.4 below). Normally, that person also ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as provision of details of authorship, ethics committee approval documentation, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors.

6.2.4 Designation of a Sole Corresponding Author for Contact Purposes. Although co-corresponding authorship may be allowed in the Author contributions section, the listing of direct-contact information will be provided for only one of the two co-corresponding authors. The two co-corresponding authors should choose which one of them will be responsible for all contact and correspondence with the journal. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/310.

6.3 Publication Misconduct. To respect intellectual-property rights and uphold standards for academic publishing, BPG does not tolerate publication misconduct. The US Office of Research Integrity defines research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. BPG's broader publication-misconduct policy also covers inappropriate authorship, duplicate or multiple submission, overlapping publication, salami publication, citation manipulation, and other conduct that compromises the integrity of the scholarly record. The applicable definitions and policies are as follows:

6.3.1 Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, data, figures, methods, or words without appropriate credit. Excessive, irrelevant, or coercive citation is addressed separately as citation manipulation or inappropriate citation practice and is not, by itself, plagiarism.

6.3.2 Fabrication. Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them as genuine.

6.3.3 Falsification. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, or results, or omitting data or results, so that the research is not accurately represented in the record.

6.3.4 Inappropriate Authorship. Inappropriate authorship occurs when authorship credit or order does not accurately reflect contributors' work or when persons who do not meet the applicable authorship criteria are included or qualifying contributors are omitted.

6.3.5 Duplicate Submission/Multiple Submissions. Duplicate or multiple submission is the simultaneous submission of the same manuscript, or substantially the same manuscript, to two or more journals, or submission to another journal while the first journal retains exclusive consideration under an agreed or stated period.

6.3.6 Overlapping Publication. Overlapping publication is publication of a paper that substantially duplicates one already published without appropriate disclosure, justification, and cross-reference.

6.3.7 Salami Publication. Salami publication is the unjustified division of data from a study that could reasonably be reported in one paper into multiple articles that substantially overlap in population, methods, and research question.

When credible concerns arise, BPG will conduct an investigation and give the authors an opportunity to respond. If publication misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions may include rejection, retraction, notification of relevant institutions or funders, temporary submission restrictions, and publication of relevant notices in accordance with applicable laws, privacy requirements, and publication ethics guidelines.

To support plagiarism screening and high publication-ethics standards, BPG has used iThenticate since 2014. iThenticate (https://www.ithenticate.com/) is a similarity-detection tool that assists editors in identifying text overlap. All peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for publication will undergo similarity screening. Similarity percentages and overlapping-word counts are screening indicators only and do not, by themselves, establish plagiarism or other misconduct. BPG may consider the extent, concentration, source, citation, and context of matched text, but no numerical threshold alone establishes misconduct. If potentially significant overlap is identified, the Scientific Editor will examine the matched text and relevant sources. If credible concerns remain, BPG will investigate and give the authors an opportunity to respond before taking any editorial action. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/208.

6.4 Conflict of Interest Disclosure. All journals published by BPG adhere to the conflict of interest policies established by the WAME and the ICMJE. The policies regarding conflicts of interest for authors, editorial board members, peer reviewers, and editors are outlined below.

6.4.1 Authors. A conflict-of-interest statement is required for all article and study types. Each author must disclose relationships, activities, or interests that are related to the submitted work or could reasonably be perceived to influence it, including relevant financial, personal, professional, political, intellectual, or religious interests. Each author is responsible for completing their own current ICMJE Disclosure Form. The corresponding author coordinates collection and submission of the individual forms and ensures that the manuscript's disclosure statement accurately reflects all authors' disclosures; the corresponding author must not complete a single collective form on behalf of all co-authors. Further information and the current form are available at: https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/.

6.4.2 Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers must assess and disclose any relationship or circumstance that could affect, or reasonably be perceived to affect, the objectivity of their review. Relevant factors include recent or significant collaborative, institutional, financial, personal, or competitive relationships with an author. A person with a disqualifying conflict must decline the invitation. If a potential conflict is identified after review, the journal will assess its effect on the review and take proportionate corrective action, which may include disregarding the report, obtaining a new review, documenting the concern, or removing the reviewer from the reviewer database.

6.4.3 Editors. Editors must promptly disclose any conflict of interest related to a manuscript, including relevant financial interests, competitive relationships, or manuscripts authored by themselves, family members, close collaborators, friends, or colleagues. An editor with a conflict must recuse themselves from the manuscript's handling, review, and decision-making, and an unconflicted editor must be assigned.

6.4.4 Submission by Editorial Board Members, Peer Reviewers, and Editors. When Editorial Board Members, Peer Reviewers, or Editors submit manuscripts to journals published by BPG, the manuscripts will be handled independently. The submitting person will have no access to, or role in, reviewer selection, editorial handling, or the publication decision. Manuscript types that normally require external peer review will be sent to independent external experts after passing the initial review. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/236.

Choosing to serve as a reviewer for a journal published by the BPG means placing compliance with scientific norms and ethical standards at the forefront. Peer Reviewers stay informed about the latest developments and cutting-edge research in their field throughout their time reviewing manuscripts for potential publication. In that vein, their peer review activities enable them to contribute to the growth of substantive literature directly, driving the field toward further innovations and new directions. Peer Reviewers provide independent academic recommendations to the journal. Their peer-review reports are advisory and will be considered subsequently during the editorial decision-making process. Technically, these reports are crucial in guiding authors to revise their work, enhancing the paper’s overall academic quality and its potential impact on the field. Editorial independence is maintained throughout the peer-review and decision-making process. Editors, Editorial Board Members, and reviewers must not participate in the handling, review, or decision-making of any manuscript in which they have a personal, professional, financial, institutional, or academic conflict of interest.

All BPG journals use a single-blind peer-review model. Research and other manuscript types that normally require external peer review undergo independent external review. Corrections, retraction notices, and other post-publication notices may instead receive independent editorial review and, when necessary, external expert review proportionate to the issue. For most manuscript types that normally require external peer review, once a manuscript passes the Initial Academic Review, the Handling Editor usually sends review invitations to 10 prospective independent external experts with relevant subject-matter expertise and no conflicts of interest.

Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/241.

BPG handles appeals and complaints under its published policies and with reference to relevant COPE guidance, as described below.

8.1 Appeal Policy. Authors who wish to appeal a decision on their manuscript may submit a formal appeal request. The request must be made in writing through the contact method specified on BPG's current Appeals and Complaints page at https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/312, with "Appeal" and the manuscript ID in the subject line and a clear explanation of the basis for the appeal in the message body. The corresponding author must submit the request and confirm that all authors agree to the appeal.

8.1.1 Corresponding Authors Should. (1) Submit their appeal within 2 weeks of the date on which the authors receive the decision from the Editorial Office; (2) Not submit their manuscript to any other journal while their appeal is being considered; (3) Detail in the appeal request letter why they refute the decision and provide point-by-point responses to any of the reviewers’ and/or editors’ comments, together with supporting evidence; (4) Provide supporting evidence if they believe the editor or reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of the manuscript; and (5) Provide supporting evidence if they believe the editor or the reviewer may have a conflict of interest or has been biased.

Appeal requests which do not comply with the above requirements will be rejected and not considered. Appeals in which the subject matter is part of a legal dispute will not be considered, and we reserve the right to suspend or discontinue an ongoing appeal in such cases.

The time required for the consideration of an appeal may vary according to the complexity of the manuscript and its conclusion, among other reasons. Regardless, any appeal request and subsequent processing (see below) will be given priority action.

Processing Steps:

Step 1: The appeal request will be considered by an editor or designated decision-maker who was not involved in the original handling or decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. If an appeal alleges a conflict involving an editor or staff member, that person must not participate in assessing the appeal.

Step 2: The appeal request will be assessed in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Step 3: The designated appeal contact will notify the corresponding author of the outcome and provide the reasons for the decision.

Step 4: If the manuscript is to be reconsidered, the reconsideration process may involve re-review by the previous or new Peer Reviewers and/or Editorial Board Members, as well as subsequent substantive revision. Only one appeal per manuscript will be considered and that appeal decision will be final.

8.2 Complaint Policy. Authors who wish to report a complaint regarding any Editorial Staff, Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member (including appeal against suspected coerced citation, or if a reviewer is suspected of appropriating author material), the publisher, and/or publishing policies or processes may submit a formal complaint to the BPG Office via email to office@baishideng.com, with the word “Complaint” in the email subject line and an explanation of the rationale for the complaint in the email body. Any such formally submitted complaint and subsequent processing (see below) will be given priority action.

Processing Steps:

Step 1: The complaint request will be considered by the BPG Office. To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, complaints regarding Editorial Staff, Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member will not be processed by the person who is the subject of the complaint.

Step 2: The complaint will be carefully assessed in accordance with relevant rules and regulations of BPG.

Step 3: If the complaint is confirmed, corrective actions will be implemented immediately. These actions include re-training of the Editorial Staff and Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member; if serious, removal from editorial or reviewer roles, termination of relevant service arrangements where applicable, or other appropriate corrective actions; revision and improvement of the related publishing policies or processes; etc. The criteria for selection of appropriate action(s) depend on the nature of the complaint.

Step 4: The BPG Office will notify the complainant of the outcome of the complaint.

Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/312.

All BPG journals uphold editorial, academic, and professional independence as a fundamental principle. The Editor-in-Chief of each BPG journal has overall responsibility for academic quality control and editorial oversight, may assign manuscripts to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member for initial or final academic assistance when appropriate, and makes or confirms the final academic decision. All submitted manuscripts must comply with scientific standards and ethical requirements, including data authenticity, originality, applicable ethics review, academic integrity, and rigorous manuscript preparation. All submissions, whether invited or unsolicited and including those authored by BPG editorial staff or editors, undergo the parts of the structured editorial process applicable to their article type. Research and other manuscript types that normally require external peer review undergo independent external review. Corrections, retraction notices, and other post-publication notices may instead receive independent editorial review and, when necessary, external expert review proportionate to the issue. The structured editorial process may include: Manuscript Submission; Initial Checks; Initial Academic Review; Peer Review; First AI Manuscript Quality Assessment and First Editorial Decision; Author Revision; Re-review, Staged AI Reassessment, and Editorial Processing of the Revised Manuscript; Final Academic Decision; Final Publication Verification; and Online Publication.

Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/316.

10.1 Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board. Any study involving human participants, identifiable human data, human biological materials, or organ transplantation must have been reviewed by an independent ethics committee or institutional review board unless a documented exemption applies. The manuscript must state the committee name and institution, approval or reference number, approval date when available, and whether approval, a waiver, or an exemption was granted. Supporting documentation must be provided on request. Non-human basic research is not subject to this requirement unless it involves regulated human materials or data.

10.2 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or Equivalent. Any study involving animals must have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or equivalent independent animal-ethics body, unless a documented exemption applies. The manuscript must state the committee or body name, institution, and protocol or approval number, and must identify the applicable animal-welfare standards.

10.3 Animal Care and Use Statement. Any manuscript describing a study (basic research) that used animal subjects must include a statement in the Materials and Methods section affirming that all appropriate measures were taken to minimize pain or discomfort, and details of the animals’ care should be provided.

10.4 Organ Transplantation. Any manuscript describing organ transplantation must state the source of the organs or tissues, the applicable ethics approval, and how informed consent was obtained where required. Authors must confirm compliance with applicable laws and ethical standards, including that no organs or tissues were obtained through coercion, illegal commercial transactions, or from executed prisoners.

10.5 Clinical Trial Registration. Any research project that prospectively assigns one or more human participants or groups to a health-related intervention to evaluate effects on health outcomes is a clinical trial for purposes of this policy, whether or not allocation is randomized and whether or not there is a concurrent control group. Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry accepted by the ICMJE at or before the time of first participant consent for enrollment. Retrospective registration may be considered only in rare, fully explained circumstances, and acceptance remains at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion. Authors must provide the registry name, registration number, URL, and registration date.

Examples of acceptable registries include ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/) and primary registries in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform network (https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform/network/primary-registries).

Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/248.

10.6 Informed Consent. Research involving human participants must state whether informed consent to participate was obtained and in what form, or whether a competent ethics committee or institutional review board granted and documented a waiver. For case reports or any publication containing potentially identifiable personal information or images, written informed consent for publication must be obtained from the participant or legally authorized representative and archived in accordance with applicable law and journal policy. Identifying details must be omitted when they are not essential, and merely masking facial features may be insufficient. For deceased persons, authors must follow applicable law and institutional requirements and, when required, obtain authorization from the legally authorized representative or next of kin. Death alone does not automatically remove the need for ethical and privacy review.

Note: A waiver of research consent must be granted by a competent ethics committee or institutional review board under applicable law and documented in the manuscript. BPG may determine whether the documentation satisfies publication requirements, but BPG does not itself grant a regulatory or ethical waiver.

10.7 Data Availability and Sharing Statement. Clinical and basic research manuscripts must include a data availability statement specifying whether data will be shared; what data and related documents will be available; when and for how long; with whom; for what purposes; and through what access mechanism. Data sharing must comply with participant consent, ethics approval, privacy and data-protection laws, contractual obligations, intellectual-property rights, and legitimate restrictions on sensitive or third-party data. If no additional data can be shared, the statement must say so and briefly explain the reason. Submission does not, by itself, constitute an unrestricted promise to make all raw data freely available. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/252.

10.8 Statistical Review and Reporting. Manuscripts that use statistical methods must describe those methods with enough detail to permit knowledgeable readers to assess and, where possible, reproduce the analysis. The methods must be appropriate to the study design, data distribution, sample size, multiplicity, missing data, and prespecified analysis plan. Authors should report effect estimates with appropriate measures of uncertainty, such as confidence intervals; exact P values where applicable; sample sizes and exclusions; and the handling of missing data and protocol deviations. Summary statistics must match the distribution and scale of the data - for example, mean and standard deviation for approximately symmetric continuous data, and median and interquartile range for markedly skewed data. Statistical significance must not substitute for clinical or scientific importance. Complex or high-risk analyses may be reviewed by a qualified biostatistician before submission or during peer review.

If authors obtain formal statistical review or editing, they should identify the reviewer or service and describe the scope of the review; the Editorial Office may request confirmation. Such review does not transfer responsibility from the authors, who remain accountable for the study design, analysis, reporting, and conclusions. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/238.

11.1 Open Access. BPG was among the journal publishers that adopted the open-access (OA) publishing model early. Since initiating the OA model in 2004, BPG has transitioned from print-only publishing to digital publication and has developed workflows intended to make publication more efficient for authors and journal management teams. BPG continues to improve the online experience for authors and readers while supporting transparency in editorial and publishing processes.

At BPG, we engage in accelerating interdisciplinary cross-border research and promoting scholarly communication. The OA publishing model allows us to reach all readers by eliminating cost barriers and other challenges related to physical delivery. We continually strive to improve our user’s experience in the digital environment, and our efforts include: (1) Providing articles in multiple formats, including HTML, PDF, and XML; (2) Publishing e-books of case reports, an OA compendium of full-text articles provided to readers for free; (3) Building transparency by providing open access to the peer-review reports, authors’ responses, and the documents related to academic rules and norms for each published article; and (4) Constructing sustainable digital preservation archives with OA.

BPG applies the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to share and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/273.

11.2 Copyright License Agreement. After consultation by the authors and BPG, the authors agree that if this manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Copyright License Agreement will become effective immediately. Application for copyright license agreement will be made by written declaration of and attestation to the following:

11.2.1 Copyright Retained by the Author(s). The copyright in an open-access article published by BPG is retained by the author(s).

11.2.2 Author(s) Grant BPG Permission to Publish the Article. Author(s) grant BPG license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.

11.2.3 Author(s) Grant Copyright Permission. This OA article was selected and evaluated in accordance with the editorial and peer-review requirements applicable to its article type. It is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to share and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided that appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and any changes are indicated. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

11.2.4 Simultaneous Submission Statement. Author(s) certify that the manuscript is not simultaneously being considered by other journals nor is already published elsewhere.

11.2.5 Academic Misconduct Statement. Author(s) certify that the manuscript has no redundancy, plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification.

11.2.6 Conflict of Interest Statement. Author(s) certify that there is no conflict of interest related to the manuscript. If any potential conflict of interest exists, author(s) certify that it is fully disclosed.

11.2.7 Ethics Statement. Author(s) certify that all experiments involving animals and human subjects were designed and performed in compliance with the relevant laws regarding humane care and use of subjects.

11.2.8 Referenced Figures and Tables Authorization Statement. Author(s) certify that the manuscript's content is original, that material from other sources is appropriately cited, and that written permission from the copyright holder has been obtained and documented wherever permission is required.

11.2.9 Author(s) Grant BPG Permission to Use the Published Article. Author(s) grant BPG a non-exclusive license to publish, reproduce, distribute, display, archive, and promote the article in all formats and media, while copyright remains with the author(s).

11.2.10 Author(s) Grant BPG Permission to Publish Manuscript-Related Documents. Author(s) grant permission to BPG to publish manuscript-related documents (e.g., Peer Review Report, Answers to Reviewers, CrossCheck report, signed Copyright License Agreement, etc.) at the same time that the manuscript is published online.

11.2.11 Author(s) Confirm Language Review. Author(s) confirm that they have carefully reviewed the manuscript for grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, clarity, and logical consistency, and accept responsibility for the accuracy and readability of the final text.

11.2.12 Author(s) Confirm the Presentation of Figures and Tables. Author(s) certify that all figures and tables are correctly placed, clearly identified, accurately described, appropriately cited where applicable, and compliant with the journal's technical and image-quality standards.

11.2.13 Author(s) Declare that the References Are Cited Correctly. Author(s) certify that the references are numbered according to their order of appearance in the main text of the manuscript. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/250.

11.3 Archiving Policy: BPG allows authors of its open-access journals to self-archive their articles. Authors may deposit the accepted manuscript and the final published article, including the PDF and online version, in institutional or disciplinary repositories or on personal websites, subject to the terms applicable to the deposited version. The final published article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) license.

Informed by COPE guidance, the Editor-in-Chief or an unconflicted delegated academic editor exercises independent editorial judgment in deciding whether to correct or retract an article or issue an Expression of Concern. The Editorial Office coordinates investigation, documentation, communication, and implementation but does not replace the responsible editor's academic decision. The purpose of these actions is to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. The applicable processes are outlined below.

12.1 Retraction. An article may be considered for retraction when there is clear evidence that its findings are unreliable; it reports unethical research; it contains unauthorized or infringing material; its peer-review or editorial process was seriously compromised; it constitutes redundant publication, plagiarism, or another serious breach; or correction cannot otherwise protect the scholarly record. Unresolved concerns without sufficient evidence for retraction may warrant an Expression of Concern while an investigation continues. The retraction process includes the following steps:

12.1.1 Initial Verification. Upon receiving a complaint or identifying a potential issue, the editorial team conducts a preliminary assessment to determine whether a formal investigation is justified.

12.1.2 Contacting Authors and Institutions. The corresponding author and, where appropriate, all co-authors will be informed of the specific concerns and invited to respond. When warranted, the Editorial Office may request assistance or findings from the authors' affiliated institutions, funders, or other competent bodies. The Editorial Office will maintain appropriate records of relevant communications and evidence, subject to applicable confidentiality, privacy, and legal requirements.

12.1.3 Decision on Retraction. The Editor-in-Chief, or an independent unconflicted academic editor formally designated when the Editor-in-Chief is conflicted, evaluates the available evidence, the authors' responses, and any reports received from competent institutions or bodies and makes or confirms the retraction decision. The Editorial Office Director coordinates documentation and implementation but does not independently make the academic retraction decision. The journal controls the final wording and publication of the retraction notice, which must identify the retracted article, state the reason for retraction, identify who is retracting the article, distinguish findings from allegations where necessary, and be linked bidirectionally to the article. Guidance is available at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/296.

12.1.4 Author-Initiated Retraction Requests. Authors may request retraction and provide a proposed explanation, but the journal independently determines whether the retraction criteria are met and controls the final wording and publication of the notice. All authors should be consulted and their agreement or disagreement recorded; lack of unanimous agreement does not prevent the journal from acting when retraction is necessary. An author may withdraw a request, but the journal may continue an investigation and take appropriate action independently. Retraction notices will be processed and published under BPG's publication-ethics procedures and applicable journal policies. Guidance is available at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/296.

12.2 Correction. A Correction is issued when an error or omission materially affects an article, its interpretation, or the publication record but does not invalidate the article as a whole. The responsible editor determines whether correction, republication, retraction, or another notice is appropriate. The journal controls the final wording and links the notice bidirectionally to the article. Authors may be asked to complete the applicable request form and provide proposed correction text and supporting information.

12.3 Expressions of Concern. The Editor-in-Chief or an unconflicted delegated academic editor may issue an Expression of Concern when credible concerns about an article require prompt notice to readers but the evidence is inconclusive, an investigation is incomplete, the findings of an institution are unavailable or unreliable, or a final outcome will take substantial time. The notice must identify the article and the basis and status of the concern, avoid presenting unresolved allegations as established facts, and be linked bidirectionally to the article. The journal will follow the matter to an appropriate outcome and update readers through a correction, retraction, replacement, or removal of the Expression of Concern, as warranted. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/286.

Figures must be presented in the order that they appear in the main text of the manuscript (numbered as 1, 2, 3, etc.). All figures must have a detailed figure legend that provides a clear and comprehensive description of the information presented in the figure, so that the reader can understand without having to refer back to any other portion of the manuscript. It is necessary to keep all elements compiled in a line-art image. Scale bars (with the length of the bar defined in the legend text rather than on the bar itself) or magnification factors (with textual definition in the legend) can be used. If figures previously published elsewhere are used in the manuscript, the original source must be properly cited, and written permission from the copyright holder must be submitted to BPG. Figure legends should be presented on a separate page and numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals that correspond to the respective figures. Any symbols, arrows, numbers, or letters used to highlight specific elements within a figure must be clearly identified and explained in the legend. The guidelines—covering Bitmaps, Vector Graphics, General Image Guidelines, Image Processing and Acquisition Tools, Electrophoretic Gels and Blots, Microscopy, and Copyright and Permission—are outlined as follows.

13.1 Bitmaps. The quality of a bitmap depends on its resolution. Bitmaps include X-ray images, digital subtraction images, angiography images, ultrasound images, CT images, MRI images, and endoscopy images. Image size, font size, pixel dimensions, and image format should be considered when preparing bitmaps. The requirements for bitmap preparation are as follows:

13.1.1 Image Sizing. The image should be less than 16.8 cm in width and less than 25.8 cm in height.

13.1.2 Font Size. The font should be Tahoma with a font size of 7 and line spacing of 10. In case of special circumstances, the size and line spacing can be appropriately reduced, but the font size should not be less than 5; Greek letters such as α and β should be supplied in symbol font; abbreviations that are not commonly used should be spelled out or defined in the figure legend. There should be a space between a number and its unit; values do not require thousandth commas. For phrases, only the first letter should be capitalized.

13.1.3 Bitmaps. Save bitmaps in RGB color mode and in PNG format at a resolution of 300-500 dpi. Use distinct colors to enhance contrast, but do not rely solely on red-green contrast; figures must remain interpretable to readers with color-vision deficiencies. Multi-part images should be labelled with bold capital letters A, B, C, etc. in the upper-left corner, using black or white bold Tahoma type at size 10. When a figure contains multiple photographs, use consistent spacing and dimensions so the composite remains legible and aligned. Crop non-informative black borders or shadows where appropriate. Arrows, symbols, and labels must remain consistent with their descriptions in the text and legend. Remove or fully redact patient names and other identifying information.

13.2 Vector Graphics. Vector graphics include bar charts, line charts, and flow diagrams. Axes, tick marks, labels, line weights, spacing, and panel alignment must be consistent and legible at publication size. Bar and line charts should be prepared using suitable vector-capable software such as Microsoft Excel or Prism. Use color, grayscale, fills, and patterns in a way that preserves contrast and remains interpretable when printed or viewed by readers with color-vision deficiencies. Flow-chart text should be aligned consistently with adequate internal margins. PRISMA flow diagrams must use the current PRISMA 2020 template and preserve the required stages and labels.

13.3 General Image Guidelines. Do not combine images taken at different times or locations unless clearly indicated as time-averaged or a time-lapse sequence. Clearly separate adjacent images with borders, and label and describe each image in the figure legend. Avoid using tools that deliberately alter images (e.g., cloning, healing). Apply adjustments (brightness, contrast, etc.) uniformly across the entire figure panel, including controls. Do not alter data visibility or selectively emphasize regions. Be prepared to provide original, unprocessed or uncropped images upon request. In the event this is not possible, be prepared to present experimental replicates of the images presented.

13.4 Image Processing and Acquisition Tools. List all image acquisition tools and software used, including version numbers. If custom code is used for processing, provide a full description and make it available in a community repository. Fully document all image acquisition settings and processing steps in the Materials and Methods section.

13.5 Electrophoretic Gels and Blots. Cropping is acceptable if it improves clarity but must be cited in the figure legend. Some BPG journals may require the original, uncropped images to be provided and published as supplementary files. Avoid comparing samples across different gels/blots. If necessary, note that the samples are from the same experiment and processed in parallel. Use clear separations (e.g., black lines) for cropped together non-adjacent lanes. Include loading controls on the same blot where possible. Do not overexpose gels/blots, to prevent loss of faint bands. If high contrast is needed, provide multiple exposures in the Supplementary Information. All papers containing blots should provide uncropped images with the membrane edges clearly visible as a supplementary information file ready for peer-review.

13.6 Microscopy. Do not group cells from different fields in one image; use Supplementary Information to show additional fields. Apply image adjustments uniformly. Any use of pseudo-coloring, threshold adjustments, or gamma changes must be disclosed in the figure legend. Ensure all microscopy images are presented with scale bars and/or indicated magnification. Images from different groups shown side-by-side should be presented at the same magnification to allow accurate visual comparison. Specify equipment details (e.g., microscopes, cameras, lenses) and list key acquisition settings in the Methods section. Mention any processing software used and describe manipulations such as deconvolution, 3D reconstructions, or thresholding. State the image resolution and any processing done to enhance it. All color scales must be defined and intensity levels must be provided in either the figure or its associated legend.

13.7 Copyright and Permission. BPG identifies the copyright status of figures to protect authors' rights and support proper attribution. When an author uses a figure published elsewhere or owned by another copyright holder, the author must cite the source and obtain and document permission where the intended reuse is not covered by a license or legal exception.

Authors must confirm whether each figure is original, meaning it was created for the submitted article. If BPG requires a copyright notice on an original figure, use the year of publication rather than a fixed calendar year: Copyright © The Author(s) [year of publication].

If an author reuses a figure that was published elsewhere or is owned by another copyright holder, the author must provide documentation of permission where required and accurately cite the source and copyright. For example: "Figure 1 Histopathological examination by hematoxylin-eosin staining (200 x). A: Control group; B: Model group; C: Pioglitazone hydrochloride group; D: Chinese herbal medicine group. Citation: Yang JM, Sun Y, Wang M, Zhang XL, Zhang SJ, Gao YS, Chen L, Wu MY, Zhou L, Zhou YM, Wang Y, Zheng FJ, Li YH. Regulatory effect of a Chinese herbal medicine formula on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(34): 5105-5119. Copyright © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc[6]." The source must also appear in the reference list. Failure to obtain permission or provide accurate attribution may result in corrective editorial action and potential legal liability. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/325.

14.1 General Principles. BPG journals recognize the growing role of generative AI in scientific research and publishing. Limited assistive use of AI tools may be permitted, but it must not replace human judgment, scientific reasoning, or ethical responsibility. The use of AI tools, including large language models such as ChatGPT, must adhere to the principles of transparency, human intellectual responsibility, accountability, confidentiality, data protection, and appropriate disclosure.

14.2 Policy for Authors.

14.2.1 Permitted use. Language editing and grammar correction; Improving clarity and readability; and Formatting assistance.

14.2.2 Restricted use. Generating scientific hypotheses, data interpretation, or conclusions; Producing original scientific content without human validation; and Creating or manipulating data, images, or results.

14.2.3 Mandatory disclosure. At submission, authors must disclose the name and version of each AI tool used, the purpose of use, and the extent of its involvement in the cover letter and in the appropriate manuscript section. Routine spelling or grammar checking that does not generate substantive content may be exempt if the journal's current instructions expressly say so.

Example statement: Portions of this manuscript were edited using AI tools for language refinement. The authors were responsible and agree to accountability for all scientific content.

Example statement: The authors agree to accountability for all content of this manuscript, including any portions for which AI tools were used as assistive technology. The authors confirm that all AI-assisted outputs have been carefully reviewed, verified, and validated. The authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the manuscript. AI tools were not used to generate data, perform analyses, or draw scientific conclusions.

14.2.4 Authorship. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, as they lack accountability and the ability to take responsibility.

14.2.5 Responsibility. Encompassing accuracy, originality, and integrity of the work.

14.2.6 Confidentiality and data security. Authors must not upload, input, or otherwise disclose any part (in whole or in part) of unpublished manuscripts that have been submitted to journals under BPG and are currently under review/processing to any unauthorized large language model or artificial intelligence system. Such actions may result in unauthorized disclosure of unpublished research content and violate principles of confidentiality and data security in scholarly publishing. If authors use institutional, licensed, or secure AI-assisted language tools before submission, they must ensure that confidential data, identifiable personal information, and unpublished third-party materials are not disclosed, retained, or used for model training. Authors are responsible for safeguarding the confidentiality of all unpublished materials and assume full responsibility for data protection.

14.3 Policy for Reviewers.

14.3.1 Confidentiality (strict prohibition). Reviewers must not enter or upload any part of a manuscript, supplementary material, author response, or other confidential review material into an unauthorized AI system. Doing so is a breach of peer-review confidentiality.

14.3.2 Permitted use. A reviewer may use a journal-authorized AI tool solely to refine the language or grammar of the review report if confidentiality can be assured, no manuscript text or identifiable confidential information is entered, and the use is disclosed to the journal. If these conditions cannot be met, AI use is not permitted.

14.3.3 Prohibited use. Reviewers must not use AI tools to perform the scientific evaluation, interpret the manuscript's results, generate the substance or conclusions of a review, or make a recommendation to the editor.

14.3.4 Responsibility. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, fairness, and ethical integrity of their reports and must verify any AI-assisted language changes before submission.

14.4 Policy for Editors.

14.4.1 Editors must ensure. Compliance with AI-disclosure requirements; detection and fair assessment of undisclosed or inappropriate AI use; protection of manuscript confidentiality and personal data; and editorial decisions based on human judgment. Editors may use only journal-authorized AI systems that satisfy applicable confidentiality, data-protection, access-control, and retention requirements.

14.4.2 Editors must not rely on AI tools for. Final acceptance or rejection decisions, scientific judgment, or the unverified evaluation of reviewer or author conduct. Any permitted AI output is supporting information only and must be critically verified by an accountable human editor.

14.5 Misuse and Ethical Violations. After fair review of the facts and an opportunity for the affected person to respond, a confirmed violation of this policy may result in proportionate action, including manuscript rejection, correction or retraction of a published article, notification of an institution or funder when justified, or temporary suspension of submission or reviewing privileges.

14.6 Alignment with International Standards. This policy is informed by current guidance and recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Because external guidance evolves, BPG will review this policy periodically and resolve any conflict by reference to the current authoritative source and applicable law.

Further information about BPG's AI policy is available at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/324.