Last updated: March 19, 2026

Editorial Process

Submitting to or engaging with a journal published by the Baishideng Publishing Group (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 World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (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 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 the Editor-in-Chief, an Executive Associate Editor-in-Chief, or an Associate Editor based on 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 10 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 Evaluates 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, 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 verifies 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 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, 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), the Editorial Office Director writes the Editorial Office Director’s comments and makes the First Decision of provisional acceptance or rejection.

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 without 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 forced citations recommended by peer reviewers.

Step 8 Re-Review and Editing of 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 satisfy 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 decision of acceptance or rejection. In the review, the innovativeness and importance of the manuscript will be re-evaluated, including: 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 convert 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’ proofread has been done; and (6) Revising and updating the PDF document based on the authors’ feedback, and sending it to the authors again for further 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 ‌produce 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.