Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG) publishes open-access journals and is responsible for protecting the integrity, reliability, accessibility, and permanence of the scholarly record. Open access provides readers with free access to published articles and may be supported by article processing charges (APCs) and other disclosed revenue sources. An APC is charged only when it applies under the relevant journal policy; not every journal or article is subject to an APC.

BPG's publication-ethics policies are informed by the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable international standards. BPG applies these policies throughout manuscript submission, peer review, editorial decision-making, production, publication, and post-publication review. Human editors retain responsibility for every editorial decision, including decisions supported by automated or artificial-intelligence tools.

This policy establishes the minimum publication-ethics requirements for all BPG journals and all published content, including invited and unsolicited manuscripts, articles submitted by editors or staff, special issues, supplements, conference-related content, corrections, retractions, and post-publication material. A journal may adopt stricter requirements but may not reduce the protections established here. If a journal-specific or operational policy conflicts with this policy, this policy controls unless applicable law or a later BPG policy expressly provides otherwise.

BPG reviews this policy periodically and after material changes in international guidance, technology, law, or publishing practice. Material revisions are dated and communicated to relevant editors, reviewers, authors, and staff. Related operational policies and journal webpages must be kept consistent with this policy, and any necessary departure must be documented and reviewed by an unconflicted responsible editor or the BPG Ethics Committee.

BPG's principal responsibilities are to:

(1) follow recognized core practices for peer-review publishers and journal editors.

(2) publish peer-reviewed articles through standardized, independent, transparent, and traceable procedures.

(3) disclose material information about journal ownership, governance, peer review, access, fees, licensing, preservation, and conflicts of interest.

(4) maintain proportionate quality-control and research-integrity procedures that prevent, identify, investigate, and address publication misconduct.

(5) correct the scholarly record promptly and transparently when reliable evidence requires action.

2.1 COPE Core Practices for Publishers

BPG defines and communicates the responsibilities of authors, peer reviewers, editors, editorial staff, and production staff. Its policies protect manuscript confidentiality, personal data, intellectual property, reviewer independence, editorial independence, and the accuracy of the published record. Concerns are handled consistently, confidentially, and fairly, with records sufficient to support accountability.

COPE Core Practices

2.2 COPE Core Practices for Journal Editors

Editors assess whether a manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope and whether it meets applicable scientific, ethical, and reporting requirements. Editorial procedures are designed to support independent decisions, protect freedom of scholarly expression, prevent commercial or organizational interests from compromising academic judgment, and enable corrections, retractions, clarifications, and expressions of concern when necessary.

2.3 Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief of each BPG journal has overall responsibility for the journal's academic quality and editorial oversight, resolves material disagreements or escalated matters, and makes or confirms the Final Academic Decision for manuscripts that reach that stage. The Handling Editor makes the First Editorial Decision following peer review within formally delegated authority. Scientific Editors conduct the required quality and compliance checks and provide documented recommendations. Journal ownership, commercial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, and publishing operations must not determine or improperly influence academic decisions. Editors must disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and must recuse themselves when independent judgment could reasonably be questioned.

2.4 OASPA Principles and Best Practices

BPG's open-access policies are informed by recognized principles concerning transparency, licensing, attribution, governance, peer review, fees, archiving, and preservation. Journal-specific information is made available on the relevant journal website.

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

2.5 ICMJE Recommendations

BPG policies for its medical journals are informed by and generally follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), as applicable to each journal, manuscript type, and governing law. This statement does not replace a journal-specific assessment of compliance with individual recommendations.

ICMJE Recommendations

2.6 Academic and Ethical Requirements

All manuscripts submitted to BPG journals must comply with the academic, ethical, and reporting requirements applicable to the research and manuscript type. Required items may include Institutional Review Board or ethics-committee approval, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee approval, informed consent or an approved waiver, prospective clinical-trial registration, biostatistical review, conflict-of-interest disclosure, funding disclosure, data-availability information, and disclosure of artificial intelligence (AI) use.

Authors must provide authentic supporting documents when requested. Submission of a document for editorial verification does not mean that the document will automatically be made public. Any ethics-related document released with an article must be appropriately redacted to remove personal identifiers, signatures, contact information, confidential institutional information, and other protected information.

BPG Academic Rules and Norms

2.7 Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship requires all four of the following conditions: a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data; participation in drafting the manuscript or critically revising important intellectual content; approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for the integrity of the work and for the appropriate investigation and resolution of questions concerning it. Every person listed as an author must satisfy all four conditions, and every contributor who satisfies them should be listed as an author.

The Author Contributions statement must accurately describe each author's work. The corresponding author coordinates communication with the journal and confirms that authorship, ethics, registration, funding, conflict-of-interest, data, and AI disclosures are complete. Contributors who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged only with their permission and with a description of their contribution.

A request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must explain the reason and include written agreement from all listed authors and every person being added or removed. Editors do not adjudicate unresolved authorship disputes. Processing may be suspended while the relevant institution investigates. An authorship change after publication requires an appropriate public notice linked to the article.

ICMJE Authorship and Contributorship Recommendations

BPG Criteria for Authorship

2.8 Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Original research articles and other applicable manuscripts must include a data-availability statement. The statement must identify whether the data underlying the reported results, data dictionaries, analytic code, study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and relevant materials are available; where and when they are available; and any access conditions. When ethical, legal, contractual, privacy, or security restrictions prevent public sharing, the restriction and any available controlled-access procedure must be explained. A justified restriction is evaluated on its merits and is not automatically treated as misconduct.

Reports of clinical trials must include a data-sharing statement, and the trial registration must include a data-sharing plan when required. Material changes to the registered plan must be updated in the registry and explained in the manuscript. Secondary analyses of shared data must cite the source dataset through an appropriate persistent identifier, comply with the conditions of access, and explain how the analysis differs from earlier reports.

Authors must retain the primary data and analytic procedures supporting published results for at least 10 years, or longer when required by law, an institution, a funder, a contract, or an active investigation. Methods must report the information necessary to evaluate and, where feasible, reproduce the work, including relevant software and model versions, code, parameters, protocols, and material availability. Authors must provide underlying records for confidential editorial verification when reasonably requested.

ICMJE Clinical-Trial Registration and Data-Sharing Recommendations

2.9 Peer Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers must keep manuscripts and related material confidential, use them only to prepare the requested review, and neither appropriate nor disclose unpublished ideas, data, or methods. They must disclose relevant relationships and interests, decline assignments they cannot review impartially or competently, respond within the agreed time, and provide objective, specific, constructive, and respectful comments. Reviewers must not coerce citations or make personal, discriminatory, defamatory, or unsupported allegations.

A reviewer must obtain the journal's permission before involving a trainee, colleague, or other person and must identify that person's contribution to the editor. Suspected misconduct or serious error must be reported confidentially to the editor. Reviewers must delete or securely dispose of manuscript copies after completing the review unless retention is authorized or legally required. Any use of AI is additionally governed by Section 7.3.

ICMJE Responsibilities in Submission and Peer Review 

3.1 Peer Review Process

BPG journals use single-blind peer review unless a journal-specific policy states otherwise. Manuscripts requiring external peer review are evaluated by independent experts with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible editor assesses the quality, relevance, and consistency of the reviews and makes an independent decision based on the complete editorial record rather than reviewer votes alone.

BPG Peer-Review Process

3.2 Editorial Process

All invited and unsolicited manuscripts, including manuscripts authored by BPG staff or journal editors, must undergo the applicable structured editorial process. Procedures for Corrections and Retraction Notes may be adapted to their purpose. The process generally comprises the following ten stages:

(1)  Manuscript Submission

(2)  Initial Checks

(3)  Initial Academic Review

(4)  Peer Review

(5)  First AI-Assisted Manuscript Quality Assessment and First Editorial Decision

(6)  Author Revision

(7)  Re-review, Staged AI Reassessment, and Editorial Processing of the Revised Manuscript

(8)  Final Academic Decision

(9)  Final Publication Verification

(10) Online Publication

The Handling Editor coordinates the peer-review process, evaluates the complete post-peer-review record, and makes the First Editorial Decision within delegated authority. Scientific Editors verify academic quality, editorial compliance, the adequacy of revisions, and the completeness of procedural records. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall academic responsibility and makes or confirms the Final Academic Decision. Peer-review recommendations, similarity reports, and AI-assisted assessments are supporting evidence and do not replace independent human judgment.

BPG Editorial Process

3.3 Editorial Team and Contact Information

BPG maintains an editorial and publishing team with defined roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines. Current management and contact information are available on the BPG website.

BPG Management Team

BPG Contact Information

3.4 Appeals and Complaints

BPG considers appeals and complaints fairly, promptly, and independently. An appeal must identify the decision being challenged and provide a reasoned basis and relevant evidence. Whenever practicable, an appeal is reviewed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision and who has no relevant conflict of interest. A complaint about process, conduct, delay, confidentiality, or another matter is documented, investigated, and resolved under the applicable BPG policy and relevant COPE guidance. Raising a concern in good faith must not result in retaliation.

BPG Policies on Appeals and Complaints

3.5 Article Processing Charges

Each journal states whether an APC applies, when it becomes payable, what it covers, and whether waivers or reductions are available. An APC, when applicable, is invoiced only after acceptance and does not influence peer review or editorial decision-making. Current journal-specific fee information governs in the event of any inconsistency with a general description.

BPG APC Information

3.6 Copyright and Licensing

For articles published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0), authors retain copyright and authorize noncommercial sharing and adaptation when the original work is properly cited and the license terms are followed. The license and copyright notice displayed with the published article control. Commercial reuse requires separate permission when the license does not authorize it.

CC BY-NC 4.0 License

3.7 Publication Misconduct

Publication misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

(1)  Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, and deceptive omission or misrepresentation of data.

(2)  Duplicate or multiple submission, redundant or overlapping publication, and salami publication.

(3)  Inappropriate authorship, ghostwriting, undisclosed writing assistance, or misrepresentation of contributions.

(4)  Paper-mill involvement, coordinated or batch fraudulent submissions, and fabricated manuscripts or datasets.

(5)  Peer-review manipulation, false reviewer identities, compromised reviewer accounts, or organized peer-review rings.

(6)  Inappropriate image processing, deceptive image alteration, or reuse of images or data without disclosure.

(7)  Citation manipulation, including coerced, irrelevant, reciprocal, or commercially motivated citation.

(8)  Concealment of material financial, academic, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest.

(9)  Falsified or misleading ethics approval, informed-consent, trial-registration, authorship, funding, or other supporting documents.

(10) Undisclosed, prohibited, or deceptive use of artificial intelligence.

A concern or screening result is not, by itself, a finding of misconduct. BPG follows a staged process: the concern is documented; a preliminary verification is conducted; relevant parties are notified when appropriate; those parties are given a reasonable opportunity to respond; the available evidence is evaluated by an unconflicted responsible editor or committee; and proportionate action is taken. Confidentiality is maintained to the extent possible, and conclusions are based on evidence rather than allegations, automated scores, or similarity percentages alone.

BPG Publication-Misconduct Policy

3.8 Ownership and Management

BPG journals are owned and managed by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. The list of current journals and journal-specific information is maintained on the BPG website. Ownership and management do not displace the independent academic authority assigned to journal editors under this policy.

BPG Journals

3.9 Journal Websites

Each journal website identifies the journal's aims and scope, editorial board, peer-review model, editorial process, publication frequency, access model, APC information, waiver information, copyright and license, author guidelines, ethics requirements, conflict-of-interest policy, correction and retraction policy, advertising and sponsorship policy, appeals and complaints procedure, post-publication discussion mechanisms, contact information, and submission route. Material changes are dated and published promptly.

3.10 Journal Names and ISSNs

Each BPG journal uses a distinct journal name and obtains the applicable International Standard Serial Number. Journal titles and ISSN information are displayed accurately and are not presented in a manner likely to mislead authors, readers, or indexing services.

ISSN International Centre

3.11 Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, Editorial Board Members, peer reviewers, and staff must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence their work or judgment. Relevant interests may be financial, academic, institutional, professional, competitive, personal, or ideological. Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves when a conflict cannot be adequately managed. Undisclosed conflicts are investigated and may require revision of the editorial record, rejection, correction, retraction, disclosure, or another proportionate action.

BPG Conflict-of-Interest Policy

3.12 Online Access to Articles

BPG journals provide open online access to published articles. Readers may access and download article content without a subscription, subject to the license and terms displayed with each article.

3.13 Revenue Sources

BPG discloses its material revenue sources. These may include APCs, database or distribution cooperation, copyright permissions, reprints, and other lawful publishing services. Revenue arrangements must be separated from editorial decision-making and must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, corrected, or retracted.

BPG Revenue-Source Information

3.14 Advertising and Sponsorship

Advertising and sponsorship must not influence editorial decisions or access to unpublished editorial content. Advertisements must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content, accurately identify the advertiser, comply with applicable law, and must not be misleading or offensive. BPG does not place an advertisement adjacent to editorial content about the same product when the placement could create confusion or imply endorsement. BPG may refuse or remove advertising that is unlawful, misleading, harmful, or inconsistent with this policy. Complaints about advertising are documented and reviewed separately from academic editorial decisions.

BPG Advertising and Sponsorship Policy

3.15 Publication Frequency

The publication frequency of each BPG journal is stated on the journal website. Material changes to a publication schedule are disclosed promptly.

BPG Publication-Frequency Information

3.16 Author Self Archiving and Digital Preservation

Authors may self-archive the accepted manuscript and final published article in institutional repositories, disciplinary repositories, or personal websites, subject to the license and any version-specific conditions displayed with the article. Self-archived content must preserve the article's citation, DOI, license, and notice of any later correction or retraction.

BPG maintains operational backups and prepares publication files and metadata for deposit with applicable indexing services, repositories, and preservation systems. Specific services and deposits depend on each journal's current eligibility, participation status, contractual arrangements, and technical requirements. Preservation arrangements are intended to support continued access to published content following system failure, platform migration, or journal closure. Current preservation and participation information should be stated on the relevant journal website and updated when arrangements change.

3.17 Direct Marketing

BPG promotes journal aims and scope and invites submissions through appropriate academic channels. Direct marketing must be accurate, targeted, and non-misleading. Invitations must identify the journal and publisher, provide a functional opt-out mechanism when applicable, and must not make unsupported claims about indexing, impact, acceptance, peer-review speed, or publication outcomes.

4.1 Peer Review Reports

When a journal publishes peer-review and re-review reports, authors' responses, and an Editor-in-Chief review report, reviewers must be informed of the applicable disclosure policy before accepting the assignment. BPG obtains appropriate consent before publishing a reviewer's abbreviated name, country or territory, identifier, signature, or other identifying information. A reviewer's choice or the journal's policy concerning anonymity is respected. Published reports are screened to remove personal data, confidential information, defamatory material, and information that could identify protected research participants or third parties.

4.2 Authors' Responses to Reviewers

When the journal's transparency policy provides for publication of the authors' response, the response is released with the article after appropriate review and redaction. Authors must not include confidential information, unnecessary personal data, or unsupported allegations about reviewers or editors.

4.3 Ethical Oversight of Human Research, Animal Research, and Organ Transplantation

Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, or human biospecimens must be planned, conducted, and reported in accordance with applicable law, prior review by an independent ethics committee or Institutional Review Board, and the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2024. Approval by an ethics body does not prevent an editor from independently assessing whether the research was ethically acceptable.

Required ethics approval must normally be obtained before recruitment, intervention, or collection of research data or specimens begins. Approval obtained only after the research started or was completed is not treated as prospective approval and will normally not satisfy BPG requirements. Any exceptional circumstance requires an explicit determination from the responsible ethics body, a complete explanation from the authors, and independent editorial review.

Authors must provide the approvals, statements, waivers, and supporting documents required for research involving human participants, identifiable human data or biospecimens, organ or tissue transplantation, or animals. Editors may verify these materials with the issuing institution. Consent forms containing patient identifiers or signatures are retained and protected in accordance with applicable law and are not routinely published.

Written informed consent for publication is required when a manuscript contains information, images, pedigrees, audio, video, or other material from which a participant could reasonably be identified. The participant or legally authorized representative must be informed that the material may be available online and must be given an appropriate opportunity to review the material to be published. Nonessential identifiers must be removed, and de-identification must not distort scientific meaning. The published article must state when consent for publication was obtained.

Any ethics-related document released with an article must be appropriately redacted to remove personal identifiers, signatures, contact information, confidential institutional information, and other protected information. Redaction must not obscure information necessary to verify the identity of the approving body, approval number, approval date, or scope of approval, unless law or a legitimate confidentiality requirement prevents disclosure.

Animal research must comply with applicable institutional and national standards for animal care and use. Authors must identify the approving body and protocol number, describe measures to minimize pain and distress, justify the species and number of animals, and follow an appropriate reporting guideline such as ARRIVE when applicable.

Human organ and tissue transplantation research must comply with applicable law, institutional ethics approval, informed-consent requirements, and the ethical principles reflected in the Declaration of Istanbul. Authors must describe the source of organs or tissues and confirm that procurement was lawful and voluntary and did not involve organ trafficking, transplant commercialism, coercion, or transplant tourism. BPG does not accept research using organs or tissues obtained through unethical or unlawful procurement. Editors may request additional source documentation and may refer unresolved concerns to the relevant institution or authority.

Declaration of Istanbul

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki

ICMJE Protection of Research Participants

ARRIVE guidelines

4.4 Clinical Trial Registration

Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in a publicly accessible registry that meets applicable ICMJE or World Health Organization requirements. Registration must occur on or before enrollment of the first participant. The registration number and registry must appear in the manuscript abstract and in the required publication statements.

Late registration must be explained and is accepted only in exceptional circumstances after editorial review. Authors must disclose material differences among the registered protocol, prespecified primary and secondary outcomes, submitted manuscript, and published results. Undisclosed outcome switching, omission of registered outcomes, or retrospective alteration of registration information may result in investigation or editorial action.

Every clinical-trial report must include the applicable data-sharing statement. When the registry requires a data-sharing plan, the plan must be entered in the registration record and kept consistent with the manuscript. Any material change must be updated and explained.

ICMJE Clinical-Trial Registration Guidance

4.5 Biostatistics Statement

When required for the manuscript type, authors must provide a biostatistical review statement or certificate from a qualified individual. Publication of the statement or certificate is subject to the same privacy, authenticity, and redaction requirements that apply to other supporting documents.

4.6 Conflict of Interest Statement

Every article must include the applicable conflict-of-interest statement. The statement must be complete, specific, and consistent with disclosures provided during submission. If no relevant conflict exists, the article must state that explicitly.

4.7 Authorship and Author Contributions

Every article must include an Author Contributions statement that accurately describes each author's contribution and is consistent with the authorship information approved by all authors. Authorship eligibility, accountability, changes, disputes, and acknowledgment of non-author contributors are governed by Section 2.7.

4.8 Copyright License Agreement

All authors must complete the applicable copyright and license agreement before publication. Any agreement released with an article must be handled in accordance with privacy and data-protection requirements.

4.9 Similarity Check Reports

BPG may use iThenticate or another similarity-checking service to screen manuscripts for text overlap. A similarity report and similarity percentage are screening information only; they do not establish plagiarism, redundant publication, or misconduct. A qualified editor must examine the matched sources, context, attribution, quotation, methods language, lawful reuse, and the authors' explanation before reaching a conclusion.

If a similarity report is released with an article, BPG reviews it before publication and redacts or withholds third-party text, personal information, confidential material, or other content that should not be publicly disclosed. An automated similarity threshold must not be used as the sole basis for rejection, penalty, or a misconduct finding.

4.10 Data Availability and Reproducibility Statements

Every applicable published article must include a specific data-availability statement consistent with Section 2.8. The statement must not use a generic claim when the data are restricted or unavailable. When code, protocols, statistical analysis plans, reporting checklists, or other reproducibility materials are required for the manuscript type, their availability or restrictions must also be disclosed.

BPG separates academic decision-making from technical and production verification while maintaining a complete, traceable editorial record. Responsibilities may be operationally delegated, but the assigned role remains accountable for the required verification and decision. Peer-review recommendations, similarity reports, and AI-assisted assessments support human judgment and do not make editorial decisions.

5.1 Scientific Editor Initial Checks and Compliance Review

After submission, a Scientific Editor verifies journal scope, authorship and affiliations, manuscript completeness, required ethics and consent materials, clinical-trial registration, conflicts of interest, funding and data statements, AI-use disclosure, language requirements, figures, tables, references, and indicators of potential research or publication misconduct. The Scientific Editor may request missing materials or correctable revisions, recommend rejection, or refer a concern for investigation. Manuscripts that satisfy the applicable initial requirements proceed to Initial Academic Review.

5.2 Initial Academic Review and External Peer Review

Initial Academic Review is conducted under the overall supervision of the Editor-in-Chief, with assistance from an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member when appropriate. The review considers scope, scientific merit, novelty, research design, methods, statistics, data plausibility and internal consistency, reporting quality, ethics, and potential misconduct. The Editor-in-Chief makes or confirms the decision to send the manuscript for external peer review or to reject it at this stage.

For manuscripts sent to external peer review, the Handling Editor selects independent reviewers with relevant expertise, verifies their identity and conflicts of interest, coordinates the review, and assesses whether each report is sufficiently reasoned, relevant, and complete for editorial use. Invalid or inadequate reports are excluded from decision-making and retained in the internal record; additional reviewers are invited when needed.

5.3 Handling Editor First Editorial Decision

After the required peer review has been completed, the Handling Editor evaluates the initial academic review, all valid peer-review reports, reviewer ratings and recommendations, ethics and consent documents, conflict-of-interest information, similarity-screening results, the authors' AI contribution statement, and verified findings from the first AI-assisted manuscript quality assessment. For manuscript types requiring external review, the record will normally include at least two valid reports, but the decision is based on the quality and substance of the evidence rather than the number of recommendations.

The Handling Editor makes the First Editorial Decision within formally delegated authority. The decision may invite revision or reject the manuscript. When reports materially disagree, lack necessary expertise, or raise complex methodological or statistical questions, the Handling Editor may obtain additional review. AI findings and similarity results are supporting information only and must not be the sole basis for revision, rejection, penalty, or a finding of misconduct.

5.4 Revision Re-review AI Reassessment and Scientific Editor Verification

When revision is invited, the Handling Editor provides the authors with a consolidated request containing valid peer-review comments, initial academic review comments, verified AI-assisted findings, and applicable technical or ethical requirements. Authors must submit a revised manuscript, a marked copy when required, and point-by-point responses. Re-review is arranged when substantive scientific issues require expert confirmation; it may be omitted when the remaining issues are exclusively editorial and the academic record is sufficient.

For applicable manuscript types, a second AI-assisted manuscript quality assessment compares the revised manuscript with the prior version, evaluates whether verified concerns were resolved, and identifies residual or newly introduced inconsistencies. A targeted third or subsequent assessment may be used for specific unresolved issues. The Scientific Editor independently verifies material AI findings, reviewer comments, author responses, revisions, ethics records, data and statistical consistency, and support for the conclusions. Academic-quality verification and editorial-compliance verification remain separately identifiable and, where operationally feasible, are performed by different Scientific Editors. Each verification produces a documented recommendation for acceptance, further revision, rejection, or additional review.

5.5 Editor-in-Chief Final Academic Decision

The Editor-in-Chief reviews the complete editorial record and makes or confirms the Final Academic Decision: acceptance, further revision, or rejection. The review includes the initial academic assessment, peer-review and re-review reports, similarity report, verified AI-assisted assessment reports, ethics and consent documents, author responses and revision history, Scientific Editor verification records, and the final edited manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief independently evaluates novelty, scientific importance, research design, methodological and statistical soundness, reliability and consistency of the results, adequacy of the discussion, support for the conclusions, ethical compliance, and overall medical relevance. Material disagreement is documented and resolved by reference to the quality and relevance of the underlying evidence.

5.6 Final Publication Verification

After academic acceptance, the BPG Journal Editorial Office Director conducts Final Publication Verification. This technical and publication-focused review confirms that the manuscript and related files are complete and correctly named; required ethics, consent, funding, language, copyright, peer-review, author-response, and editorial records are present; personal information is appropriately redacted; and the edited text, figures, tables, references, metadata, and publication files meet applicable standards. This verification does not replace or alter the Final Academic Decision. Any material scientific, ethical, authorship, data, or integrity concern is documented and referred to the Editor-in-Chief for reconsideration before publication proceeds.

5.7 Language Editing

The Language Editor verifies the manuscript's language-quality classification and edits the full text for grammar, clarity, consistency, and readability without changing the authors' scientific meaning, numerical results, interpretation, or conclusions. Any change that could affect scientific content is referred to the responsible Scientific Editor and, when necessary, to the authors or Editor-in-Chief.

5.8 Production and Online Publication Metadata and Preservation

The Production Editor prepares and checks the article layout, figures, tables, XML, PDF, HTML, supplementary materials, and publication metadata; sends the proof to the authors; incorporates verified proof corrections; and prepares the final online version. The Production Department Director verifies the electronic-journal and online publication information, accessibility of article files, completeness of figures, tables, supplementary materials, and links, and compliance with the publication schedule.

Accepted manuscripts may be made available online as Articles in Press and forwarded for DOI registration and production processing in accordance with BPG policy. After final publication, BPG prepares and submits publication files and metadata to applicable indexing services, repositories, and preservation systems, subject to each journal's current eligibility, participation status, and technical requirements. Inclusion in a particular database or repository is not guaranteed unless the journal currently meets that service's requirements and maintains an active participation arrangement.

5.9 Post-Publication Debate

All BPG journals permit evidence-based post-publication discussion through Correspondence or another stated mechanism. Substantive critiques are assessed promptly and fairly, authors are normally invited to respond, and the published record is updated when the evidence supports a correction, retraction, clarification, or expression of concern. Editorial disagreement alone does not justify suppressing a good-faith critique.

BPG Post-Publication Debate Policy

5.10 Corrections Retractions and Expressions of Concern

BPG addresses post-publication concerns in accordance with applicable COPE guidance and BPG policy. The Editorial Office or Handling Editor coordinates preliminary verification, investigation, evidence collection, communication with authors and institutions, recordkeeping, and implementation. The Editor-in-Chief or an unconflicted delegated Handling Editor exercises independent academic judgment in deciding whether to issue a correction, retract an article, publish an expression of concern, or take another action. Publishing or production staff must not replace the Editor-in-Chief’s or responsible Handling Editor's judgment.

The responsible editor considers the reliability of the article, the nature and extent of the problem, the authors' response, available institutional findings, effects on readers or patients, and whether the record can be corrected without retraction. Notices must identify the article, explain the reason for the action, distinguish error from confirmed misconduct when possible, remain linked to all versions, and be freely accessible. The purpose is to protect the integrity of the scholarly record, not to punish authors without evidence.

When a correction changes the article, BPG publishes a correction notice that cites the original article, states the date and substance of the change, and links to the corrected version. Prior versions are archived and either remain accessible or are available on request; each prior electronic version prominently identifies the existence of a later version. Substantive scientific, ethical, authorship, or data changes must not be made silently. Citations and metadata should identify the most current version while preserving the history of the record.

BPG Correction and Retraction Policy

5.11 Editorial Record Retention and Confidentiality

BPG normally retains the original submission, peer-review reports, revisions, author responses, editorial correspondence, decision records, AI-use records, and relevant integrity or ethics documentation for at least three years after final disposition or publication. Records are retained longer when required by law, contract, institutional or funder policy, preservation needs, a complaint, an investigation, or a legal hold. The applicable retention practice for rejected manuscripts is disclosed to authors.

Access to editorial records is limited to authorized persons with a legitimate editorial, legal, technical, or integrity purpose. Audit trails and relevant versions must be preserved. Records are not made public except under an established transparency policy, with the required consent or redaction, as required by law, or when a proportionate publication-integrity action requires disclosure.

ICMJE Corrections and Version Control Recommendations

6.1 Academic Rules and Norms

All manuscripts must comply with BPG's academic rules and norms and with applicable research-ethics, reporting, and data-integrity requirements. Authors must provide authentic records and answer reasonable editorial questions accurately and completely.

BPG Academic Rules and Norms

6.2 BPG Ethics Committee

The BPG Ethics Committee advises on serious, complex, recurring, or disputed ethical matters and supports consistent application of policy across BPG journals. Committee members must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary. The Committee's review supports, but does not improperly replace, the academic decision assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or another unconflicted responsible Handling Editor.

BPG Ethics Committee

6.3 Preliminary Screening and Verification

Before external peer review and at later stages when appropriate, editorial staff may review manuscript titles, abstracts, full text, author and submission histories, ethics documents, trial registration, references, images, data consistency, and related public information. Screening may identify possible duplicate publication, plagiarism, paper-mill or batch-submission patterns, ghostwriting, false documents, manipulated images, coordinated authorship, or other integrity concerns. Screening findings are documented and verified by a qualified human editor before they are relied upon.

6.4 Similarity Checking

BPG may use iThenticate to identify text that warrants examination. The editor assesses the source, amount, location, context, attribution, and purpose of matched text. Methods overlap, properly quoted material, standard terminology, preprints, theses, translations, and lawful reuse require contextual assessment. Neither a similarity percentage nor an automated report is sufficient by itself to establish plagiarism or justify rejection or penalty.

6.5 Reviewer Independence Identity Verification and Conflict-of-Interest Screening

The Handling Editor verifies a prospective reviewer's identity, qualifications, relevant expertise, current affiliation, contact information, and publication record. An institutional email address is preferred when available, but email domain alone does not establish identity. Particular care is applied to author-recommended reviewers, recent account changes, unusual contact information, repeated reviewing patterns, and indicators of a coordinated peer-review ring.

Conflict screening considers shared institutional affiliation, recent collaboration or coauthorship, mentor-trainee relationships, close professional competition, financial interests, personal relationships, organizational roles, and other circumstances that could affect or appear to affect judgment. Selecting a reviewer from a different institution is necessary in many cases but is not sufficient by itself to establish independence. Reviewers must disclose relevant relationships and decline the assignment when impartial review cannot be assured.

6.6 Investigation and Opportunity to Respond

When a credible concern is raised, BPG applies the following staged procedure, adapted to the seriousness and urgency of the matter:

(1)  Document the concern, source, affected manuscript or article, and available supporting information.

(2)  Conduct a preliminary verification to determine whether the concern is specific, plausible, and within BPG's responsibility.

(3)  Assign the matter to an editor or committee without a relevant conflict of interest and preserve pertinent records.

(4)  Notify the affected author, reviewer, or other party when appropriate and provide enough information for a meaningful response without unnecessarily revealing a whistleblower's identity.

(5)  Provide a reasonable opportunity to respond and submit supporting evidence; urgent interim measures may be taken when necessary to protect patients, research participants, confidential information, or the integrity of the record.

(6)  Assess all available evidence, including explanations, source records, image or data analyses, editorial logs, reviewer-account information, and institutional findings when available.

(7)  Reach and document a reasoned conclusion and take proportionate editorial action; communicate the outcome to relevant parties to the extent permitted by law and confidentiality obligations.

BPG may request raw data, original images, ethics records, authorship documentation, reviewer-identification information, or other materials reasonably needed for verification. A failure to provide requested records is evaluated in context and may affect the editorial decision, but conclusions must remain proportionate to the evidence.

6.7 Proportionate Editorial Actions

When misconduct or a serious policy violation is confirmed, actions may include requiring clarification or correction, rejecting or withdrawing a manuscript, publishing a correction, retracting an article, issuing an expression of concern, notifying an institution, ethics committee, registry, funder, or relevant authority when justified, invalidating a compromised review, removing a reviewer from service, or imposing a proportionate temporary restriction on submissions or reviewing. The action must reflect the reliability of the work, seriousness of the conduct, risk of recurrence, effect on the scholarly record, and procedural fairness. Findings and actions are recorded.

6.8 Citation Manipulation

Editors assess whether citations are relevant, necessary, accurate, and appropriately balanced. Editors and reviewers must not coerce authors to add citations for personal, journal, institutional, or commercial advantage. A request to cite a reviewer's or editor's work must have a clear scholarly justification, and authors remain free to explain why a suggested citation is not relevant. Suspected citation manipulation is verified and investigated before proportionate action is taken.

6.9 Allegations and Whistleblowers

BPG accepts specific, good-faith allegations concerning submitted or published work. Anonymous concerns may be considered when they provide verifiable information. BPG protects a whistleblower's identity to the extent possible and does not disclose it merely to facilitate a response. Malicious, knowingly false, abusive, or repetitive allegations unsupported by new evidence may be closed after documented review. The identity or status of the person raising a concern does not determine whether the evidence is assessed.

BPG Allegations and Whistleblowers Policy

7.1 General Principles

BPG recognizes legitimate uses of artificial intelligence, including generative AI and machine-learning systems, in research and publishing. AI use must be transparent, lawful, appropriate to the task, and subject to accountable human review. AI must not replace scientific reasoning, peer review, editorial judgment, authorship responsibility, confidentiality, informed consent, data protection, or research-integrity obligations. AI systems cannot be authors, reviewers, or decision-makers.

7.2 Policy for Authors

7.2.1 Permitted Assistive Use. Authors may use AI tools for language editing, grammar correction, translation, formatting, reference formatting, manuscript organization, or similar assistive tasks when the use complies with applicable confidentiality and data-protection requirements. Authors must review and verify every output, preserve the intended scientific meaning, correct errors and bias, and disclose the use when required by BPG or when it materially affects the manuscript.

7.2.2 Permitted Research-Related Use Subject to Disclosure and Validation. AI or machine-learning methods may be used as part of research, including data analysis, statistical or computational modelling, image analysis, code generation, literature organization, hypothesis development, or other research-related work, when scientifically justified. Authors must describe the tool, model and version when available, purpose, inputs, relevant parameters, validation, human oversight, and reproducibility information in the Methods or another appropriate section. Use must comply with ethics approval, consent, data-governance, privacy, licensing, and security requirements. Authors remain responsible for verifying data, code, analyses, references, interpretations, and conclusions.

AI assistance with hypothesis development, data interpretation, or drafting of conclusions must be treated as an analytical aid rather than independent scientific judgment. Human authors must supply the scientific rationale, validate the output against source data and reliable evidence, assess alternative explanations and bias, and remain solely responsible for the interpretation and conclusions reported.

7.2.3 Prohibited Use. Authors must not use AI to fabricate, falsify, or deceptively alter data, results, images, citations, participant information, ethics documents, peer-review material, or other research records. Prohibited conduct includes presenting synthetic data or AI-generated content as authentic without transparent scientific justification; generating false results or references; making deceptive changes to original research images; concealing material AI involvement; using AI to impersonate an author, reviewer, editor, participant, or institution; or using AI to evade integrity screening. AI must not substitute for the authors' own scientific accountability or be used in a manner that violates confidentiality, copyright, privacy, consent, or applicable law.

7.2.4 Mandatory Disclosure. Authors must disclose the AI tool and version when available, provider, purpose, stage of use, manuscript sections or research activities affected, and the nature and extent of human review and validation. Research-related AI use must be reported in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and, when applicable, reproducibility. Disclosure must be consistent across the cover letter, AI contribution statement, Methods, acknowledgments, figure or table legends, supplementary materials, and data or code statements. Routine spelling or basic grammar checking may be exempt when journal instructions expressly allow it.

Example disclosure: The authors used [tool and version] for [specific purpose]. All AI-assisted output was reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, analyses, and conclusions of the work.

7.2.5 Authorship and Responsibility. AI tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot approve the final manuscript, disclose conflicts, hold copyright, or take responsibility for the work. Each human author remains accountable for the content attributed to that author and for the integrity of the work as a whole under the applicable authorship policy. AI use does not transfer or reduce human responsibility.

7.2.6 Confidentiality Data Protection and Intellectual Property. Authors must not upload confidential manuscripts, identifiable personal information, protected health information, confidential institutional records, or unpublished third-party material to an AI system unless they are authorized to do so and the system satisfies applicable confidentiality, data-protection, access-control, retention, licensing, and security requirements. Authors must understand whether prompts and outputs are retained or used for model training and must obtain any required consent or institutional authorization.

7.2.7 Verification of References Facts and AI Outputs. Authors must verify every AI-suggested citation, quotation, factual statement, calculation, code output, analysis, and interpretation against reliable sources or source data. Fabricated or unverifiable references must be removed. Citing an AI output does not validate the underlying claim or relieve authors of the duty to consult and cite the original source.

7.3 Policy for Reviewers

In addition to the duties in Section 2.9, reviewers must not enter or upload any part of a manuscript, supplementary material, author response, editorial correspondence, or other confidential review material into an unauthorized AI system. A reviewer may use a journal-authorized AI tool solely for limited language or grammar refinement of the review report when confidentiality can be assured, no protected manuscript content is disclosed, and the use is reported to the journal when required.

Reviewers must not use AI to perform the substantive scientific evaluation, interpret results, generate the substance or conclusions of a report, or determine a recommendation. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, fairness, confidentiality, citations, and ethical integrity of the report and must verify all AI-assisted changes before submission.

7.4 Policy for Editors and BPG

Editors and staff may use only journal-authorized AI systems that meet applicable confidentiality, data-protection, access-control, security, and record-retention requirements. AI may assist with standardized quality checks, language support, consistency review, integrity screening, or production tasks, but every material output must be critically verified by an accountable human editor or staff member. AI must not make acceptance, rejection, correction, retraction, authorship, misconduct, or reviewer-conduct decisions.

BPG records editorial AI use when it materially contributes to manuscript assessment or processing. BPG provides appropriate disclosure to authors, reviewers, readers, or the published record when the nature or extent of its AI use could materially affect understanding of the assessment, editing, or production process. Confidential editorial data must not be used to train an external model without authorization and an appropriate legal and ethical basis.

7.5 Automated Detection and Fair Assessment

Automated AI-detection, image-screening, similarity, or integrity tools may generate false positive or false negative results. A tool score or flag must not be the sole basis for rejection, penalty, withdrawal of reviewer privileges, notification of an institution, or a finding of misconduct. A qualified human must examine the underlying evidence, context, methods, and limitations of the tool. When adverse action is contemplated, the affected person is informed of the material concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond, unless an urgent protective measure is required.

7.6 Misuse and Ethical Violations

A confirmed violation may result in proportionate action, including a request for clarification or correction, manuscript rejection or withdrawal, correction or retraction of a published article, an expression of concern, invalidation of a review, notification of an institution or funder when justified, or temporary restriction of submission or reviewing privileges.

7.7 Alignment with International Standards

This policy is informed by current guidance from COPE, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and ICMJE. Because external guidance, technology, and law evolve, BPG reviews this policy periodically and updates it when necessary. If a conflict arises, BPG applies the current authoritative requirement and applicable law while preserving editorial independence, confidentiality, procedural fairness, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

BPG AI Policy