Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG) strictly adheres to the editorial and publishing policy guidelines set forth by 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 Independence, 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 as follows.

The Editor-in-Chief, Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or Associate Editor are responsible for all final decisions regarding each paper submitted, as well as the topics and contents of each issue. Neither the journal owners nor BPG may interfere with the decisions of the editorial office. Editors are expected to assist the Editor-in-Chief, Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or Associate Editor by contributing reasonable and constructive comments and suggestions.

3.1 Authorship Credit: Authorship credit should be given in accordance with the standard proposed by the ICMJE (http://www.icmje.org/). Specifically, authorship is merited by (1) Substantial contributions to conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (2) Drafting the article or making critical revisions related to important intellectual content of the manuscript; and (3) Provision of final approval of the version of the article to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2 and 3. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/284.

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

3.2.1 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/deny will be made according to the detailed reasons provided by the authors for justification on a case-by-case basis, with allowance permitting no more than two co-first authors and two co–corresponding authors. Joint co- designations are not allowed; for example, a single author cannot have both a co-first author designation and a co-corresponding author designation.

3.2.2 Co-first Authorship Statement. For co-first 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 and will be based upon the common role of a ’first author' being the person who made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work being published. These contributions include design of the study, acquiring and analyzing data from experiments, and writing of the actual manuscript.

3.2.3 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 #3.2.4 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.

3.2.4 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.

3.3 Publication Misconduct: To respect the intellectual property rights of others and uphold the standards for academic publishing, BPG adheres to a zero-tolerance policy towards papers associated with publication misconduct. Publication misconduct includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate submission/multiple submissions, overlapping publication, and salami publication. According to the definition of research misconduct by the US Office of Research Integrity (https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-research-misconduct), we have developed BPG’s definitions, policies and iThenticate standards for publication misconduct, which are as follows:

3.3.1 Plagiarism. Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data, figures, research methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or the over-citation of another person's published work.

3.3.2 Fabrication. Fabrication is the practice of making up data or results without having performed the relevant research.

3.3.3 Falsification. Falsification is the practice of changing data or results intentionally such that a misleading conclusion is drawn.

3.3.4 Inappropriate Authorship. Authorship is not appropriately assigned based on the author’s actual contributions.

3.3.5 Duplicate Submission/Multiple Submissions. Duplicate submission/multiple submissions refers to the practice of submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts with minor differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract, author order, author affiliations, or a small amount of text) to two or more journals at the same time, or submitting to another journal within an agreed or stipulated period.

3.3.6 Overlapping Publication. Overlapping publication refers to the practice of publishing a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published.

3.3.7 Salami Publication. Salami publication refers to the practice of slicing data from a large study, which could have been reported in a single paper, into different pieces and publishing them in two or more articles, all of which cover the same population, methods, and question.

Once we find papers associated with any of the above publication misconduct, we will: (A) Reject the manuscript or retract the published paper; (B) Not accept manuscripts submitted to any of BPG’s journals by the same research team within 2 years; (C) Inform the institution the corresponding author is affiliated with and the funder(s) about such misconduct; and (D) Release all penalty documents on the BPG site.

In addition, to fight against plagiarism and to ensure high ethical standards for all of its published papers, BPG joined iThenticate in 2014. iThenticate (http://www.ithenticate.com/) is an effective tool for detecting unoriginal content, enabling our editors to preserve the journal's integrity and the authors' copyright. All peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for publication will be undergo plagiarism detection using iThenticate. In general, reasonable citation is deemed when the number of overlapping words for a paper with the literature does not exceed 200. If a significant amount of overlapping text (e.g., an overlap > 5% or a similarity > 30%) is found, we will immediately verify if the manuscript is associated with publication misconduct or not. If the manuscript is found to have committed publication misconduct, we will immediately impose the penalties mentioned above. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/208.

3.4 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.

3.4.1 Authors. A conflict of interest statement is required for all article and study types. In the interests of transparency and helping reviewers to assess any potential bias in a study’s design, interpretation of its results or presentation of its scientific/medical content, the BPG requires all authors of each paper to declare (in the Footnotes section) any conflicting interests (including but not limited to commercial, personal, political, intellectual or religious interests) that are related to the work submitted for consideration of publication. In addition, authors are required to click and download the fillable ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and fill it in. The Corresponding Author is responsible for filling out and providing this form, collectively for all co-authors, to the Editorial Office.

3.4.2 Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers will have no conflict of interest with any author of the manuscript that they are invited to review, will come from institutions that are different from those of the authors, and will not have published articles as a co-author of any author of the manuscript; if there is any conflict of interest, the Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers should immediately decline the invitation for review. If the identification of a conflict of interest occurs after the paper is reviewed, it will be formally noted that a reviewer reviewed a manuscript despite a potential conflict of interest with one or more of the authors, then such reviewer may be flagged and excluded from the journal’s peer reviewer’s database.

3.4.3 Editors. If Editors have any conflicts of interest related to the manuscript, they should disclose them to the Editorial Office. These include financial interests, competitive relationships, or manuscripts authored by themselves, family members, friends, or colleagues. Once a conflict of interest is confirmed, the related editors is not permitted to participate in the decision-making process for the manuscript.

3.4.4 Submission by Editorial Board Members, Peer Reviewers, and Editors. When Editorial Board Members, Peer Reviewers, or Editors submit manuscripts to journals published by BPG, their manuscripts will be sent to external experts for peer review after passing the initial review. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/236. 

4.1 Significance of Peer Review: Editorial Board Members and 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. Each peer-review report, completed by Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers, plays a key role in the editor's subsequent decision-making for the manuscript. 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.

4.2 Peer Reviewer Registration: To standardize the manuscript peer-review activity of Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers, BPG has adopted a registration system for Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers as part of our efforts to ensure that only credible, high-quality studies will be published.

4.2.1 Editorial Board Member Qualifications. Professional status as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or above; academically active scholar in the field; a good record of publications and citations, especially in the past 5 years, which is suggestive of ongoing and progressive academic activities; and willingness to conduct manuscript peer review in a stipulated period of time, which is usually within 14 days.

4.2.2 Peer Reviewer Qualifications. Educational status of MD or PhD in basic or clinical medicine; and willingness to conduct manuscript peer review.

4.2.3 Reviewer Recognition. To acknowledge the contributions of reviewers, BPG assigns each reviewer an Academic Contribution Identifier (ACID) on its Reference Citation Analysis platform and creates an ACID Website to showcase that reviewer's academic contributions. Please see: https://referencecitationanalysis.com/searchscholar.

4.3 Peer Review Ethics: Peer Reviewers are encouraged to follow the COPE guidelines and flowchart when peer-reviewing a manuscript.

4.3.1 Conflict of Interest. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers will have no conflict of interest with any author of the manuscript that they are invited to review, will come from institutions that are different from those of the authors, and will not have published articles as a co-author of any author of the manuscript; if there is any conflict of interest, the Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers should immediately decline the invitation for review. If the identification of a conflict of interest occurs after the paper is reviewed, it will be formally noted that a reviewer reviewed a manuscript despite a potential conflict of interest with one or more of the authors, then such reviewer may be flagged and excluded from the journal’s peer reviewer’s database.

4.3.2 Confidentiality. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers shall not share any content of the reviewed manuscript with others outside the review process. They shall not submit for publication or publish the content of the unpublished manuscript or research results in their own manuscript(s) under any circumstance during or after the review process is completed.

4.3.3 Appropriation of Manuscript Content. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers shall not, without the permission of the manuscript’s authors and editors, use the content of the unpublished manuscripts they have reviewed for purposes unrelated to the review process (e.g., using as reference in their own manuscript) until it has been published.

4.3.4 Seeking Improper Benefits. Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers shall not directly contact any of the authors or use confidential information in the review process to obtain personal or professional benefits. They shall not use review rights to seek improper benefits.

4.3.5 Recommended Relevant Citations. Reviewers generally shall not recommend authors cite articles of their own and/or their colleagues, and/or articles from journals associated with themselves. However, in cases where there are essential articles that the authors need to cite, the reviewer should provide a meticulously reasoned explanation for his/her recommendation of the specific article so that the authors can decide independently whether or not to cite the recommended article.

4.4 Process of Peer Review: The process of inviting external peer review consists of three stages: Initial Checks, Initial Review, and Selecting Peer Reviewers.

4.4.1 Initial Checks. Upon submission, an Editor conducts initial checks to verify the following: (1) Whether the manuscript's topic falls within the scope of the journal; (2) Whether the authors' institutional affiliations and departments match the research topic; (3) For manuscripts involving animal experiments or human studies, whether the authors have provided valid ethical approval documentation; (4) Whether the manuscript, including figures, tables, and references, is complete; and (5) Whether there is any evidence of academic misconduct, such as paper mill involvement, batch submissions, ghostwriting, or plagiarism. If a manuscript passes the Initial Checks, the Editor assigns it to either the Editor-in-Chief, an Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or an Associate Editor based upon its research topic.

4.4.2 Initial Review. The Editor-in-Chief, Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's academic quality and prepares the initial review comments. Manuscripts that pass the Initial Review proceed to the external peer review step; those that do not pass are rejected.

4.4.3 Selecting Peer Reviewers. If a manuscript passes the Initial Review, the Editor invites more than two external peer reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's research topic and specialized field to conduct a single-blind peer review.

4.5 Manuscript Evaluation by Peer Reviewers: Peer review is the process by which an academic manuscript is reviewed by experts in the relevant field, i.e. external reviewers whose service is performed before a decision is made on whether to publish the manuscript or not. All BPG journals use the single-blind peer review model, and all manuscripts submitted to BPG journals (including those authored by BPG editorial staffs/editors and excepting some Correction and Retraction Note manuscripts) are required to pass strict external peer review before they can be published. Editors are not involved in decisions about manuscripts which they have written themselves, have been written by family members or colleagues, or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest.

If the study is a scientific and technological activity involving humans, including tests, surveys, and observational studies involving the use of human genes, human embryos, human biological samples, personal information, etc., it must be approved by an institutional ethics committee, and a reference number for such should be cited.

If the study is a scientific and technological activity involving organ transplantations, it must be approved by an institutional ethics committee. In addition, for human organ transplantation studies, the authors must provide a statement that affirms their experiments were performed with prior obtainment of informed consent from each participant, along with the name of the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) from which the organ(s)/tissue(s) were obtained.

If the study is a scientific and technological activity involving animals, it must be approved by an institutional ethics committee or an institutional animal ethics committee, and a reference number for such should be cited.

4.6 Writing the Review: Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers apply their knowledge and experience as experts in the field, adhering to the principles of scientificity, objectivity, and impartiality, to review manuscripts for their originality, scientificity, completeness, feasibility, readability, future development, criticalness, and research ethics. This policy plays a crucial role in further improving the academic quality of manuscripts and leading the development direction of the discipline. Editorial Board Members’ and Peer Reviewers’ comments on a manuscript and recommendations for its acceptance, submission to other journals, or rejection are the constructive framework for the Editorial Office's decision-making on the manuscript. When Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers write an in-depth and reasoned review report for a manuscript, it also serves a crucial role in helping the authors to further revise their manuscript, regardless of whether the manuscript will be finally accepted or rejected.

Before writing a peer-review report, Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers are suggested to first think about the following questions: Why did the authors perform the work? What work was done? What are the most important findings? Why did the authors use the relevant method(s)? Why were the specific parameters used? What has been done before? What makes this work different?

In addition, Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers are recommended to comment on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, and importance, elaborate on its shortcomings, and point out errors or ambiguous sentences in the text, pictures, tables, references, etc.

   In summary, these comments should focus on the manuscript's scientific content, be in-depth and supported by reason, and be specific enough to provide the authors with important academic reference value in revising their manuscript.

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

To better respond to people when appeals and complaints are raised, BPG handles these appeals and complaints in consultation with all relevant guidelines published by the COPE and in alignment with our Policies on Handling Appeals and Complaints as follows.

5.1 Appeal Policy: Authors who wish to appeal the decision on their manuscript may submit a formal appeal request. Appeal requests must be made in writing to the corresponding responsible person listed above with the word “Appeal” and the manuscript ID in the email subject line and an explanation of the rationale for the appeal in the email body. The appeal request must be submitted by the corresponding author of the manuscript. All authors must agree to the submission of the appeal request, with statement of such in the email body.

5.1.1 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 the Editorial Office. Where there is an allegation of a conflict of interest on the part of the Editor, the appeal will be handled by a different member of the Editorial Office.

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

Step 3: The corresponding responsible person will notify the corresponding author of the outcome of the appeal.

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.

5.2 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/firing of the Editorial Staff and Peer Reviewer/Editorial Board Member; 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.

Submitting to or engaging with a journal published by the BPG—whether as an author, reviewer, or editorial staff member—means entrusting us with your work. As such, we place scientific rigor and ethical integrity at the core of everything we do. All BPG journals uphold editorial, academic, and professional independence as a fundamental principle. We are committed to ensuring that our management team, editorial staffs, authors, and reviewers adhere to the guiding documents established by our Editorial Office, which are based on the standards of the WAME and the COPE—including the Guidelines for Authors, the Peer-Review Process, the Editorial Process, and Publication Ethics. All submitted manuscripts must comply with scientific research standards and ethical requirements. This mandatory policy encompasses data authenticity, absence of plagiarism, compliance with ethical review, and adherence to academic integrity and rigorous manuscript preparation standards. All manuscripts submitted to journals published by BPG, whether invited or unsolicited, undergo a structured editorial process that mainly includes: Initial Checks; Initial Review; Peer Review; First Decision; Manuscript Revision; Re-review and Editing of Revised Manuscript; Acceptance; and Accepted for Publication.

Step 1 Initial Checks. Upon submission, an Editor conducts the initial checks to verify the following: (1) Whether the manuscript's topic falls within the scope of the journal; (2) Whether the authors' institutional affiliations and departments match the research topic; (3) For manuscripts involving animal experiments or human studies, whether the authors have provided valid ethical approval documentation; (4) For manuscripts using data from human participants, whether complete and properly executed informed consent forms have been provided; (5) Whether a proper English editing certificate has been provided (for non-native speakers of English); (6) Whether the manuscript, including figures, tables, and references, is complete; (7) Whether the cover letter appropriately matches both the journal and the manuscript content; and (8) Whether there is any evidence of academic misconduct, such as paper mill involvement, batch submissions, ghostwriting, or plagiarism. If any non-compliance with journal requirements is identified during the initial checks process, the manuscript will be either returned to the authors for revision before resubmission or rejected outright. In cases where academic misconduct is detected, the manuscript will be immediately rejected, and all authors will be blacklisted and prohibited from future submissions.

Step 2 Initial Review. If a manuscript passes the Initial Checks, the Editor assigns it to either the Editor-in-Chief, an Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or an Associate Editor based upon its research topic. They then conduct a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's academic quality and provide initial review comments. The evaluation includes: (1) Whether the Abstract contains the essential components of each manuscript section (IMRaD); (2) Whether the experimental data presented in the manuscript are reliable and scientifically sound; (3) Whether the selection and design of figures and tables follow the principles of necessity and clarity; (4) Whether there is any duplication between different sections of the manuscript or between the main text and the content presented in figures and tables; (5) Whether the figures and tables are numbered consecutively in the order of their appearance in the text; (6) Whether the references are closely related to the subject matter of the text; and (7) Whether the manuscript meets the rigorous criteria to proceed to external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the Initial Review proceed to the external peer review step; those that do not pass are rejected.

Step 3 Selecting Peer Reviewers. If a manuscript passes the Initial Review, the Editor invites more than two external peer reviewers with expertise in the manuscript's research topic and specialized field to conduct a single-blind peer review. External peer reviewers include: (1) Registered Editorial Board Members: Professional status as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or above; academically active scholar in the field; a good record of publications and citations, especially in the past 5 years; (2) Registered Peer Reviewers: Educational status of MD or PhD in basic or clinical medicine; and willingness to conduct manuscript peer review; and (3) Other Peer Reviewers: Educational status of MD or PhD in basic or clinical medicine; Professional status as Assistant Professor or Associate Professor or above; a good record of publications and citations, such as H-Index > 3.

Step 4 Peer Review. External peer reviewers decide whether to accept or decline the invitation to review the manuscript within 36 hours. If they accept the invitation to review, the review should be performed according to the Guidelines for Manuscript Review within 14 days normally, though they may opt for an extension of 17 or 21 days if needed.

Step 5 Editor Evaluation of Peer Review Reports. Following the receipt of two peer review reports, the Editor is responsible for verifying the information of the peer reviewers and the content of the reports. This includes confirming whether any peer reviewers have a conflict of interest with the author(s), such as being affiliated with the same institution, and checking the peer review reports for relevance to the manuscript and for any indications of AI-generated content. When encountering conflicting reviewer reports, the Editor should first analyze the primary points of contention. If the conflict does not pertain to fundamental scientific quality, academic misconduct, or ethical issues, the Editor may select a third reviewer to provide an additional assessment.

Based on the initial review comments, the peer reviewers’ ratings of the manuscript’s scientific and language quality, novelty, creativity or innovation, and the scientific significance of its conclusions, as well as their recommendation conclusion (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection), the validity and authenticity of the ethical approval documentation provided by the author(s), and the completeness and conformity of the informed consent forms, the Editor writes the Editor’s comments, formulates a First Decision recommendation, and then submits the manuscript to the Editorial Office Director (First Director) for further processing.

Step 6 First Decision. First, the Editorial Office Director (First Director) begins by verifying whether the peer review reports meet the Guidelines for Manuscript Review requirements, assessing their validity, and determining their reference value for the decision-making process. If the quality of a peer review report does not meet the guidelines for manuscript review requirements, the review will be considered invalid and the peer review report will be discarded. If the reports are deemed insufficient, the manuscript will be returned to the Editor to invite additional peer reviewers for further review. The Editorial Office Director conducts verification of the following aspects of the peer review reports: (1) Verifying the reviewer's identity by confirming their country, institution, academic degree, and professional title, as well as determining their affiliation status (e.g., Registered Editorial Board Member, Registered Peer Reviewer, Other Peer Reviewer, or author-recommended reviewer); (2) Checking for potential conflicts of interest based on the reviewer's declaration in the report and by comparing the reviewer's institutional affiliation with that of the author(s); (3) Evaluating the comprehensiveness of the review by verifying whether the reviewer has thoroughly addressed the key content items of the manuscript, such as: Does the manuscript’s content fall within the scope of the journal? Is the content of the Introduction adequate? Is the content of the Materials and Methods complete? Is the description of the experiments clear and complete? Are the experimental data of the Results true and reliable? Is the content of the Discussion reasonable? Is the Conclusion reasonable? Are all references necessary and reasonable? Are all references related to the topic of the manuscript? Is the manuscript’s text correct, concise, and clear? Will the manuscript’s content be of interest to readers? Are additional experiments needed for the study? Does the research scope comply with ethics?; (4) Verifying whether the peer reviewer has recommended that the author cite articles by the reviewer themselves or their colleagues. In cases where there are essential articles that the authors need to cite, the reviewer should provide a meticulously reasoned explanation for his/her recommendation of the specific article so that the authors can decide independently whether or not to cite the recommended article; and (5) Verifying whether the specific comments to authors prepared by the peer reviewer focus on the manuscript's scientific content, are in-depth and supported by reason, and are specific enough to provide the authors with important academic reference value in revising their manuscript?

Next, the Editorial Office Director writes the Editorial Office Director’s comments and makes the First Decision of provisional acceptance or rejection based on the initial review comments; peer reviewers’ ratings of the manuscript’s scientific and language quality, novelty, creativity or innovation, and the scientific significance of its conclusions, along with their recommendation conclusion (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection); the first decision recommendation by the Editor; and the verification results confirming the authenticity and validity of the ethics and relevant document(s).

If the manuscript receives two peer review reports with a scientific quality rating of Grade B (Very good), Grade C (good) or above, a language quality rating of Grade B (Very good) or above, and the peer reviewers’ recommendation conclusion is either acceptance or revision, and if the ethics-related documents comply with academic rules and standards, the Editorial Office Director will make the First Decision of provisional acceptance. When encountering conflicting reviewer reports, the Editorial Office Director will check the key points of contention. If the conflict does not pertain to fundamental scientific quality, academic misconduct, or ethical issues, the Editorial Office Director will reference the third reviewer’s comments to make the decision. If two or more reviewers recommend rejection, the Editorial Office Director will proceed to reject the manuscript.

Step 7 Manuscript Revision. For manuscripts receiving a First Decision of provisional acceptance, the Editorial Office Director (First Director) will notify the authors to revise their manuscript in accordance with the peer review reports, the initial review comments, the Editor’s comments, the Editorial Office Director (First Director)’s comments, and the Checklist for Authors to Revise a Manuscript, with authors generally given 14 days to submit the revised manuscript. During the revision process, authors should highlight the changes made in a copy of the revised original manuscript to ensure that modifications can be readily identified, and provide point-by-point responses to all reviewers’ comments. Manuscripts that are returned without fully addressing the reviewers’ comments, or that cannot be revised within the deadline even after an extension, will be rejected. Additionally, a manuscript will be rejected if any of the following discrepancies are identified in the F6Publishing system and lacking a reasonable explanation: The authorship differs from the original author list, including changes in author order or the addition or removal of authors; the author affiliations or email addresses differ from those in the original submission; or the first author or corresponding author has been changed. Furthermore, if the Intelligent Manuscript Format Editor (IMFE)—an editing tool developed by BPG—identifies any of the following issues in the revised manuscript, the manuscript will also be rejected: References that are unrelated to the manuscript’s subject matter; excessive self-citations; or inclusion of forced citations recommended by peer reviewers.

Step 8 Re-review and Editing of the Revised Manuscript. For manuscripts revised by the authors, the Editor first conducts an initial review using the IMFE. This review includes the following: (1) Verifying that the authors have provided authentic and valid ethics-related documents corresponding to the manuscript type; (2) For manuscripts authored by non-native English speakers, confirming that a valid language editing certificate has been provided; (3) Ensuring that all authors have signed the Copyright License Agreement; (4) Checking the completeness of the full manuscript, including all figures and tables, and verifying that the image files provided meet the required quality standards; (5) Confirming that the authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the peer reviewers’ comments, the initial review comments, the Editor’s comments, the Editorial Office Director’s comments, and the Checklist for Authors to Revise a Manuscript; (6) Verifying the accuracy and appropriateness of reference citations, including whether the citation order is correct and whether the references are relevant to the manuscript content; and (7) Ensuring the completeness of the full manuscript and figures, and confirming that the image files meet production standards. If the manuscript passes the Editor’s review, it will be sent back to the original peer reviewers for further assessment and recommendation. If the original peer reviewers recommend further revision, the Editor will communicate with the authors to facilitate the necessary revisions. If the original peer reviewers recommend acceptance or satisfaction with the revision, the Editor will conduct plagiarism detection using iThenticate, proceed with manuscript editing, and finally send the edited manuscript to the authors for proofreading of the full content.

Step 9 Acceptance. The Editor-in-Chief, Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or Associate Editor assesses the academic quality of the manuscript, evaluates the initial peer review reports, re-review reports, ethical approval documentation, and the final manuscript after editing and author proofreading, and makes the final decision of acceptance or rejection. In the review, the innovativeness and importance of the manuscript will be re-evaluated, including answering: Is the topic novel? Are the results innovative? Are the data true? Is the conclusion definite? Does the manuscript have broad medical interest and general importance?

Step 10 Accepted for Publication. The Editorial Office Director (Second Director) makes the decision of Accepted for Publication based on the quality of the manuscript editing. If the manuscript has passed the Editor-in-Chief’s academic quality acceptance, the Editorial Office Director then proceeds to verify the correctness of the manuscript and related files. This verification includes: (1) Confirming that all related manuscript files are complete, correct, compliant with standards, and properly named; (2) Ensuring that the ethical approval document is in the official language of the country from which the manuscript originated, and for manuscripts from Mainland China, verifying that the ethical approval document includes an official stamp/signature and the date of approval; (3) Checking that any personally identifiable information in relevant documents such as informed consent forms and treatment consent forms has been redacted; (4) Verifying that a funding approval document has been provided for each funding source; (5) For manuscripts authored by non-native English speakers, confirming that a language editing certificate has been provided and verifying its authenticity; (6) Ensuring that the peer review reports are correct and that the reviewers’ academic degrees, professional titles, and country information are fully displayed; and (7) Verifying that the Editor Work Checklist has been completed correctly. In addition, the Editorial Office Director reviews the quality of manuscript editing, which includes checking whether the following elements comply with editing and publication standards: Manuscript type, title, author names, author affiliations, author contributions, funding support, abstract, citation information, core tips, main text, references, signatures of peer reviewers and editors, figures, figure legends, and tables. Finally, manuscripts that are formally accepted for publication are forwarded to the Production Department for manuscript production.

Step 11 PDF Production and Proof. After the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the Production Editor generates a PDF proof based on the accepted manuscript and its accompanying figures, and sends it to the authors via email for proofreading. The specific process includes the following steps: (1) Formatting the figures based on the image files submitted by the authors; (2) Converting the accepted manuscript Word document into an XML document; (3) Converting the PDF proof from the XML document and figures, and performing internal proofreading; (4) Notifying the authors via email to proofread the PDF document; (5) Checking if the authors’ proofreading has been carried out; and (6) Revising and updating the PDF document based on the authors’ feedback, and returning it to the authors for additional proofreading if necessary. Proofreading is solely the authors’ responsibility. Note that we may proceed with the publication of the article if no response is received.

Step 12 Publishing Online. The responsible Production Editor publishes the article PDF, HTML, XML, and related manuscript files on the journal website in accordance with the publication schedule established by the Production Department Director. The process begins with the responsible Production Editor producing the cover, table of contents, and the complete issue e-book PDF for the issue in which the article will be published, and publishing an HTML preview on the journal website; after verifying that the preview is error-free, the Production Editor submits it to the Production Department Director for review. The Production Department Director then reviews the PDF against the accepted manuscript to ensure that it has been correctly produced and complies with the journal’s formatting rules and standards, and communicates any issues requiring correction to the responsible Production Editor, who revises and updates the PDF and HTML documents based on the feedback. The responsible Production Editor then uploads and activates the article’s DOI number, officially publishes the article PDF, HTML, XML, and related academic integrity files along with the cover image, and after verifying that all content is correct, notifies the Production Department Director for further review. The Production Department Director checks that the published HTML is displayed correctly, including the article type, publication date, subtitles, author list, main text, figures, tables, and references; verifies that the PDF is the latest version, that any supplementary materials and videos (if applicable) can be downloaded correctly, that the DOI has been successfully activated, and that all related academic integrity files have been successfully published; and communicates any issues requiring correction to the responsible Production Editor, who revises and updates the PDF, HTML, XML, and related files based on the feedback, then archives the files, and sends an email to the authors notifying them of the article’s publication and inviting them to submit an Author Evaluation. Finally, the Production Department Director selects and recommends featured articles for the current issue on the journal website, recommends the cover image for the current issue on the BPG homepage, sends an email to readers in relevant fields to promote the published articles and notifies the authors of the outreach results, and notifies the Editor-in-Chief by email regarding the publication of the articles in the current issue.

Step 13 Disclosure of Peer Review Reports. Peer review reports, authors’ responses to peer review reports, and the Peer-Review Report’s Classification for the manuscript’s scientific quality, novelty, creativity or innovation, and scientific significance are made publicly available to readers through the article’s PDF and/or online version.

Step 14 Disclosure of Contributors. The peer reviewers (with their academic degrees, professional titles, and countries), along with the responsible Editor, Language Editor, and Production Editor, are disclosed to readers in the footnotes of the article PDF and its online version.

Step 15 Author Evaluation. To continually improve editorial and publishing quality, BPG journals invite authors to evaluate various stages of the process—including manuscript submission, peer review, revision, language editing, article-processing charges, and electronic/online publishing—after each article is published.

Step 16 Article Quality Tracking-Peer-Review. After the formal publication of each article, the Editorial Office invites Editorial Board Members/Peer Reviewers to evaluate the scientific quality of newly published content.

Step 17 Reader Comments. For each issue published across the BPG journals, the Editorial Office sends targeted invitations to relevant scholars, inviting them to comment on articles of interest as readers and submit their comments online. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/316.

7.1 Institutional Review Board: Any article describing a study (basic research, clinical research) involving human and organ transplantation is required to have the Institutional Review Board name, whether institutional (part of the author(s)’ academic/medical institution, such as the Oak Grove Children’s Hospital Institutional Review Board) or commercial/independent/private (contracted for-profit organizations, such as the ClinicCare Coalition for Human Rights Institutional Review Board), stated explicitly in the Footnotes section.

7.2 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee: Any article describing a study (basic research) involving animal subjects is required to have the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)’s institution name (such as the Genovese Institute) and protocol number (such as 14-9347-39G or EN-21549) stated explicitly in the Footnotes section.

7.3 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.

7.4 Organ Transplantation: Any manuscript describing a study involving organ transplantations must include a statement in the Materials and Methods section affirming that their study involved no illegal commercial transactions, the use of organs or other material from executed prisoners, or other unethical practices in obtaining donor organs, and the name of the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) from which the organs/tissues were obtained should be provided.

7.5 Clinical Trial Registration: Any research study (clinical trial) that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes must be registered. Authors have 6 months from the first patient enrollment to register the trial, but BPG recommends registration prior to enrollment. This registration policy applies to prospective/randomized/controlled trials only. Authors must provide the registration identification number and the URL for the trial's registry. Some registries are listed below:

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry

ClinicalTrials.gov

ISRCTN Register

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry

Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (OMON)

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec)

Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS), Republic of Korea

Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI)

Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC)

EU Clinical Trials Register (EU-CTR)

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS)

Japan Primary Registries Network (JPRN)

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR)

Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR)

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

7.6 Informed Consent: Any research article describing a study (clinical research and case report) involving humans and organ transplantations should contain a statement in the Footnotes section clearly stating that all involved persons (subjects or legally authorized representatives) gave their informed consent (written or verbal, as appropriate) prior to study inclusion. In general, the BPG requires that any and all details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted or anonymized. In the rare situation that a study participant’s identifiable information is crucial to the case presentation, the statement of informed consent is absolutely necessary, unless the participant is deceased.

Note: Waiver of informed consent for human study subjects may be justifiable under certain rare and specific conditions, such as for a trial with demonstrated minimal risk or cases of emergency care. Authors may petition the BPG for waiver of informed consent, but there is no guarantee that the petition will be granted. In general, the BPG favors the requirement of informed consent for all reports of information (anonymized or identifiable) and reserves the right to refuse publication of such if informed consent was not obtained.

7.7 Data Sharing Statement: Clinical research and basic research studies require a data sharing statement. The data sharing statement will be provided in the Footnotes section. Authors are strongly encouraged to provide readers with all datasets underlying the conclusions of the paper and to make the research data publicly available to enable independent verification by peers. Submission of a manuscript to a BPG journal implies that materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes, without breaching participant confidentiality. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/252.

7.8 Biostatistics: Any manuscript describing a study (basic research and clinical research) that used biostatistics must include a statement in the Materials and Methods section affirming that the statistical review of the study was performed by a biomedical statistician. Statistical review is performed before the submission or after peer-review. The author invites an expert in Biomedical Statistics to evaluate the statistical method(s) used in the study, including but not limited to the t-test (group or paired comparisons), chi-square test, ridit, probit, logit and regression (linear, curvilinear, or stepwise) modeling, correlation, analysis of variance, and analysis of covariance. The review by the biomedical statistician is conducted with respect to the following points: (1) Statistical methods are adequately and appropriately described when they are used to verify the results; (2) Statistical techniques are suitable or correct, and in compliance with the following BPG directives: (3) Only homogeneous data can be averaged. Standard deviations are preferred to standard errors. The number of observations and subjects (n) is given. Losses in observations, such as drop-outs from the study, are reported; (4) Values, such as ED50, LD50 and IC50, have the 95% confidence limits calculated and have been compared by weighted probit modeling (using the functions described by Bliss and Finney); and (5) The word “significantly” is replaced by its synonyms (if it indicates extent) or the P value (if it indicates statistical significance). Statistical data should be expressed as mean ± SD or mean ± SE. Common statistical expressions are identified as follows: t-test as t; F-test as F; chi-square test as χ²; relative coefficient as r; degree of freedom as df; number of samples as n; and probability as P.

If a biostatistics editor is employed by the authors, the person’s name (first name and family (sur)name), qualifications, and contact information must be submitted to the editorial office in the form of a letter of confirmation of service. If the biostatistics editing was performed by a commercial service provider, the company’s name and contact information, including URL and email or phone number, must be submitted to the editorial office in the form of a letter of confirmation of service. The letters of confirmation of service must include the corresponding author’s name (first name and family (sur)name) and contact information (email and phone number), and the manuscript title. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/238.

8.1 Open Access: BPG is proud to be counted among the group of journal publishers to first adopt the open-access (OA) publishing model. Since initiating the OA model in 2004, BPG has successfully transformed from an in-print exclusive publisher to providing its publications within the context of a digital environment, along the way designing and implementing a comprehensive workflow to make the publishing process more efficient for both our authors and journal management teams. Our successes in creating more convenient and substantive experiences in sourcing and reading information is the product of our receptiveness to new and innovative ideas and commitment to maintaining transparency between our authors and readers.

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 users 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.

All articles published by BPG are selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. BPG applies the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/273.

8.2 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:

8.2.1 ©The Author(s). The copyright on any open access article in a journal published by BPG is retained by the author(s).

8.2.2 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.

8.2.3 Author(s) Grant Copyright Permission. This article is an OA article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

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

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

8.2.6 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.

8.2.7 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.

8.2.8 Referenced Figures and Tables Authorization Statement. Author(s) certify that the manuscript’s content is original, with all information from other sources appropriately referenced, and that specific permission has been granted in writing by any existing copyright holders prior to publication and is clearly cited and available.

8.2.9 Author(s) Grant BPG permission to Use the Published Articles Exclusively. Author(s) grant exclusive copyright ownership to BPG for all formats of the manuscript, including print and electronic formats, English and non-English language formats, and subsequent editions such as Erratum, in addition to all rights for: (1) Granting permission to republish or reprint the materials in whole or in part, with or without a fee; (2) Printing copies for free distribution or for sale; and (3) Republishing the materials in a compendium or in any other format.

8.2.10 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.

8.2.11 Author(s) Declare that the Language of the Manuscript Is Correct and Free of Language Errors. Author(s) certify that the manuscript contains no errors in grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, or logic.

8.2.12 Author(s) Declare that the Figure(s) and Table(s) Are Quoted Correctly. Author(s) certify that all figures and tables have been correctly placed and clearly identified, and meet the journal’s standards of high-resolution quality.

8.2.13 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.

8.3 Archiving Policy: BPG allows authors of its open access journals to self-archive their articles. Authors are permitted to deposit the accepted manuscript and the final published article (including both the PDF and the online version) in institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, or personal websites, thereby enabling the public to freely access and download the work. All self-archived content is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license.

In accordance with COPE guidelines, the editorial team exercises independent judgment in matters concerning the retraction, correction, or issuance of expressions of concern for published articles. Should an article be determined to involve academic misconduct, retraction proceedings will be initiated. Errors attributable to the authors will result in the publication of a Correction, while those originating from the journal itself will be addressed through an Erratum. Furthermore, if questions arise regarding the scientific integrity of an article, the Editorial Office may issue an Expression of Concern. The detailed protocols governing these independent editorial decisions are outlined below.

9.1 Retraction: An article may be considered for retraction if the editorial team identifies evidence or sustains suspicions of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulation of data, results, or conclusions, or other serious issues such as copyright infringement. The retraction process involves the following sequential steps:

9.1.1 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.

9.1.2 Contacting Authors and Institutions. The corresponding and first authors are contacted, informed of the specific concerns regarding their article, and requested to provide an explanation. If warranted, the Editorial Office may seek assistance from the authors' affiliated institutions in conducting the investigation. Comprehensive records of all related communications will be maintained by the Editorial Office.

9.1.3 Decision on Retraction. The Editorial Office Director evaluates the accumulated evidence, the authors' explanations, and any reports received from their institutions to ascertain whether the article meets the established criteria for retraction. Upon a positive determination, the Editorial Office is responsible for drafting and submitting the retraction notice online. Guidance on composing a retraction notice is available at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/296. Bibliographic citations for retraction notices should include the phrase “Retraction of: [article title]”, and citations for the retracted article itself should include “Retraction in: [article title]”.

9.1.4 Author-Initiated Retraction Requests. For retraction requests originating from the authors, the Editorial Office must verify that the request aligns with the applicable retraction criteria. If the criteria are satisfied, the authors are responsible for drafting and submitting the retraction notice online. This submission must include a written request form signed by all authors, detailing the reasons for the retraction. Once the retraction process has been formally initiated, the authors may not withdraw their request. The retraction notice will proceed through the standard publication workflow and will be officially published online following payment of the applicable publication fee by the authors. The guidelines for writing a retraction note can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/GerInfo/296. Bibliographic citations for retraction notices should contain the phrase “Retraction of: [article title]”, and citations for retracted articles should contain the phrase “Retraction in: [article title]”.

9.2 Correction: A Correction serves to notify readers of a significant error made by the author(s) that impacts the scientific integrity of the paper. To initiate this process, authors must complete the Correction Request Form and prepare the text for the Correction Announcement. Bibliographic citations for a republished article should include the phrase “Corrected and republished from: [article title]”, and citations for the original article should include the phrase “Corrected and republished in: [article title]”.

9.3 Expressions of Concern: An Expression of Concern may be issued by the Editorial Office during an ongoing investigation when it is deemed necessary to alert the readership promptly. This action is typically taken when potential issues are suspected but evidence is inconclusive, investigations are incomplete, or relevant information is not yet fully available. The expression of concern serves to inform readers that the article may be problematic while reserving the option for definitive action following the investigation's conclusion. It is the editor's responsibility to initiate appropriate investigative procedures, ascertain the investigation's outcome, and communicate that outcome to readers in a subsequent journal issue. Depending on the findings, the final outcome may necessitate the publication of a retraction notice. The bibliographic citation for an Expression of Concern is directly linked to the citation of the original article. Citations for Expressions of Concern should contain the phrase “Expression of concern for: [article title]”. 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.

10.1 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:

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

10.1.2 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.

10.1.3 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 avoid using red and green for contrast when necessary so that color-blind individuals are able to read the figure. Multi-part images should be noted as bold capital letters A, B, C, etc. (black or white color, bold Tahoma font, size 10) in the upper left corner. When a figure is composed of multiple photos, the distance between the left and right sides or the upper and lower sides of two adjacent photos should be 1 mm, and the height of a single photo should be 5-8 cm. In order to display the photos neatly in a PDF, the width of photos of the same type in the same manuscript should be equal or close, and the height of other bitmaps should be determined according to the height and content of the original photo. The thickness of arrows in the image should be 0.1-0.3 mm, which can be adjusted according to the original picture. The length of arrows is determined according to the length of the original picture; the color of arrows should be orange (RGB parameter: 255, 102, 0), but the final color can be selected according to the visual effect. When changing the color of arrows, note that the corresponding color description in the text or figure legend should also be changed. Generally, the size of the triangle arrow heads in the picture should be uniformly defined as H: 2.276 mm, W: 1.748 mm, and they should be filled with orange or white color. One to three photos are usually placed horizontally in the two column page. When there is a large area of black background or shadow around bitmaps such as CT images, it should be cropped out. The patient's name and other private information in the picture should be covered for full redaction.

10.2 Vector Graphics: Vector graphics include bar charts and line charts, in which the thickness of the vertical and horizontal coordinate axes should be 0.1 mm, and the length is determined according to the size of the coordinate length in the original drawing; the scale should be 0.1 mm in thickness and 1 mm in length; the axis label should start with the first letter capitalized and not contain any period; the distance between the scale value and the scale should be 1 mm; the distance between the scale value and the axis label should be 2 mm. The distance between the left and right sides or the upper and lower sides of two adjacent bar or line charts should be 3-5 mm. Bar and line charts should be prepared using Microsoft Excel or Prism. Since bar charts with different background grayscales has unified style and better contrast and visual effect than those with different colors (such as red lines), it is highly recommended to use pure black, white, or gray color to fill bar charts, and avoid use of patterns and background shadows. For flow charts, the text should be left-aligned, with upper, lower, left, and right margins of 2 mm each; for a PRISMA 2009 flow diagram, the boxes on the left that indicate the processes of Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Included should use orange background and white font.

10.3 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.

10.4 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.

10.5 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.

10.6 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.

10.7 Copyright and Permission: In order to respect and protect the author’s intellectual property rights and prevent others from misappropriating figures without the author's authorization or re-publishing figures without indicating the source, we will indicate the author's copyright for figures originally generated by the author. If the author has used a figure published elsewhere or that is copyrighted, the author needs to be authorized by the previous publisher or the copyright holder and/or indicate the reference source and copyrights.

Please check and confirm whether the figures are original (i.e. generated de novo by the author(s) for this paper). If the picture is ‘original’, the author needs to add the following copyright information to the bottom right-hand side of the picture in PowerPoint (PPT): Copyright ©The Author(s) 2026.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published, and correctly indicate the reference source and copyrights. For example, “Figure 1 Histopathological examination by hematoxylin-eosin staining (200 ×). 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 reference source will also need to be included in the references list. If the author fails to properly cite the published or copyrighted picture(s) or table(s) as described above, he/she will be subject to withdrawal of the article from BPG publications and may even be held liable. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/325.

All journals published by BPG adhere to the policies on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools established by international academic organizations, including the COPE, WAME, and ICMJE. The following outlines BPG’s policies regarding the rejection of AI authorship, as well as the use of AI in peer review and editorial processes.

11.1 Rejection of AI Authorship: In accordance with ICMJE’s policy on “Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors”, authorship criteria are designed to ensure that authorship is attributed to individuals who deserve recognition and can take responsibility for the work. Since AI tools (such as ChatGPT or other large language models) cannot meet these criteria, they are not eligible to be listed as authors, nor should they be cited as such. Authors assume full responsibility for the content of their manuscripts, including any content generated with the assistance of AI tools, and are accountable for any breaches of publication ethics. If AI tools are used to generate content in a manuscript, such use must be clearly disclosed, with the exception of using AI tools solely for grammar correction. Failure to disclose the use of AI tools, once identified, will be considered academic misconduct and may result in manuscript retraction. To ensure transparency in the publication process, BPG journals require authors to disclose, during the revision stage, whether AI tools were used to generate the abstract, main text, figures, or tables of their manuscripts via the IMFE feature in the F6Publishing system. If authors confirm that AI tools were used to generate content, such use should be described in the methods section (or the corresponding section) of the manuscript.

11.2 Use of AI in Peer Review: Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers are prohibited from using AI tools to generate their Peer Review Reports. However, they may use AI tools to assist in checking and correcting grammar and other non-content-related errors (such as spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) in their Peer Review Reports, as well as to help detect potential academic misconduct, such as plagiarism and duplicate publication. Additionally, Peer Reviewers must strictly maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and are forbidden from uploading any manuscript content to any AI tools. Specifically, AI tools are permitted as supplementary aids but not as substitutes for human judgment. To ensure compliance during the peer review process, BPG journals include a reminder regarding the “Policy on AI Usage” in the invitation emails sent to Editorial Board Members and Peer Reviewers, and require them to explicitly disclose, via the F6Publishing system, whether AI tools were used to generate the Peer Review Report (by responding to the question: “Are your review comments generated by AI tools?”). The Editorial Office will verify, using a combination of manual checks and technical tools, whether a Peer Review Report contains content generated by AI tools. If it is determined that a reviewer used AI tools to generate all or part of the Peer Review Report, that reviewer will be flagged and excluded from the journal’s peer reviewer database, and the relevant Peer Review Report will be deemed invalid.

11.3 Use of AI in Editorial Decisions: Editors play a crucial role in the editorial decision-making process. During this process, Editors are responsible for verifying whether authors have disclosed their use of large language models and AI tools, and how such tools were employed. For instance, the use of AI for spell-checking and grammar correction is generally considered acceptable. Editors are not permitted to upload any manuscript content into AI tools, as doing so would violate BPG’s confidentiality policy. Further information can be found at: https://www.wjgnet.com/bpg/gerinfo/324.