1. Article Type

EIVX has no restrictions on the maximum length of manuscripts, provided that the text is concise and comprehensive. All submitted manuscripts should neither be published previously nor be under consideration for publication in another journal. Ensure that any manuscript you submit conforms to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for ethics. The main article types are listed below. Please note that not all article types are available for all disciplines.

l   Article

These are original research manuscripts. The work should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information. The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions (optional) sections. Please refer to the journal webpages for specific instructions and templates.

l   Case Report

Common in medical journals, case reports present detailed information on the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment (including all types of interventions), and outcomes of an individual patient. They usually describe new or uncommon conditions that serve to enhance medical care or highlight diagnostic approaches. The structure of case reports differs from articles and includes an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Detailed Case Description, Discussion, and Conclusions. Special care should be taken when submitting case reports to ensure that appropriate permission for publication has been obtained from patients featuring in the paper. A sample blank consent form can be found on the ‘Instructions for Authors’ pages of the relevant journals.

l   Communication

Communications are short articles that present groundbreaking preliminary results or significant findings that are part of a larger study over multiple years. They can also include cutting-edge methods or experiments, and the development of new technology or materials. The structure is similar to an article.

l   Editorial

These are non-peer-reviewed texts used to announce the launch of a new journal, a new section, a new Editor-in-Chief, a Research Topic, or an invited editorial. The main text should provide a brief introduction of the purpose and aim of the Editorial—to present the new journal, close the Research Topic, report on a pressing topic, etc. Editorials should not include unpublished or original data, although must provide a Conflict of Interest statement. Editorials prepared for the launch of new journals may also include a short biography of the Editor-in-Chief.

Perspectives are usually an invited type of article that showcase current developments in a specific field. Emphasis is placed on future directions of the field and on the personal assessment of the author. Comments should be situated in the context of existing literature from the previous 3 years. The structure is similar to a review.

l   Review

Reviews offer a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within a field of study, identifying current gaps or problems. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research. No new, unpublished data should be presented. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions.

l   Systematic Review

Systematic review articles present a detailed investigation of previous research on a given topic that use clearly defined search parameters and methods to identify, categorize, analyze, and report aggregated evidence on a specific topic. The structure is similar to a review; however, they should include a Methods section.

2. Manuscript Preparation

2.1. Language Style

The default language style at EIVX is American English. For any questions regarding style, we recommend authors to consult the Chicago Manual of Style.

2.2. Front Matter

These sections should appear in all manuscript types:

l   Title: The title of your manuscript should be concise, specific and relevant. It should identify if the study reports (human or animal) trial data, or is a systematic review, meta-analysis or replication study. Please do not include abbreviated or short forms of the title, such as a running title or head. These will be removed by our Editorial Office.

l   Author List and Affiliations: Authors' full first and last names must be provided. The initials of any middle names can be added. The PubMed/MEDLINE standard format is used for affiliations: complete address information including city, zip code, state/province, and country. At least one author should be designated as the corresponding author. The email addresses of all authors will be displayed on published papers. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that consent for the display of email addresses is obtained from all authors. If an author (other than the corresponding author) does not wish to have their email addresses displayed in this way, the corresponding author must indicate as such during proofreading. After acceptance, updates to author names or affiliations may not be permitted. Equal Contributions: authors who have contributed equally should be marked with a superscript symbol (†). The symbol must be included below the affiliations, and the following statement added: "These authors contributed equally to this work". The equal roles of authors should also be adequately disclosed in the author contributions statement. Please read the criteria to qualify for authorship.

l   Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.

l  Keywords: Three to ten pertinent keywords need to be added after the abstract. We recommend that the keywords are specific to the article, yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.

2.3. Research Manuscript Sections

l   Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.

 

l   Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. Give the name and version of any software used and make clear whether computer code used is available. Include any pre-registration codes.

 

l  Results: Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

 

l   Discussion: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and limitations of the work highlighted. Future research directions may also be mentioned. This section may be combined with Results.

 

l  Conclusions: This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

2.4. Back Matter

l   Supplementary Materials: Describe any supplementary material published online alongside the manuscript (figure, tables, video, spreadsheets, etc.). Please indicate the name and title of each element as follows Figure S1: title, Table S1: title, etc.

 

l   Author Contributions: Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it; AND has approved the submitted version (and version substantially edited by journal staff that involves the author’s contribution to the study); AND agrees to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions and for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.

For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used "Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; Methodology, X.X.; Software, X.X.; Validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; Formal Analysis, X.X.; Investigation, X.X.; Resources, X.X.; Data Curation, X.X.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, X.X.; Writing – Review & Editing, X.X.; Visualization, X.X.; Supervision, X.X.; Project Administration, X.X.; Funding Acquisition, Y.Y.”, please turn to the CRediT taxonomy for the term explanation. For more background on CRediT, see here.

 

l   Funding: All sources of funding of the study should be disclosed. Clearly indicate grants that you have received in support of your research work and if you received funds to cover publication costs. Note that some funders will not refund article processing charges (APC) if the funder and grant number are not clearly and correctly identified in the paper. Funding information can be entered separately into the submission system by the authors during submission of their manuscript. Such funding information, if available, will be deposited to FundRef if the manuscript is finally published.

Please add: “This research received no external funding” or “This research was funded by [name of funder] grant number [xxx]” and “The APC was funded by [XXX]” in this section. Check carefully that the details given are accurate and use the standard spelling of funding agency names at https://search.crossref.org/funding, any errors may affect your future funding.

 

l   Acknowledgments: In this section you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for experiments).

 

l   Conflicts of Interest: Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interest that may be perceived as influencing the representation or interpretation of reported research results. If there is no conflict of interest, please state "The authors declare no conflict of interest." Any role of the funding sponsors in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results must be declared in this section. If there is no role, please state “The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, and in the decision to publish the results”.

 

l   References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. We recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as EndNote, ReferenceManager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references. We encourage citations to data, computer code and other citable research material. 

 

Citations and References in Supplementary files are permitted provided that they also appear in the main text and in the reference list.

 

In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. 

 

The reference list should include the full title, as recommended by the ACS style guide. Style files for Endnote and Zotero are available.

 

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

l   Journal Articles:

1. Author 1 AB, Author 2 CD, Author 3 EF, et al. Title of the article. Journal Name. Year, Volume(Issue) (if available), Firstpage–Lastpage. doi (if available). 

l   Books and Book Chapters:
2. Author 1 AB, Author 2 CD. Title of the chapter. In: Title of the Book, 2nd ed. Publisher name: Publisher Location, Country, 2023. pp. 102–144.
3. Author 1 AB, Author 2 CD. Title of the contribution. In: Editor 1 FM, Editor 2 FM (editors). Title of the Book, Edition. Publisher: Publisher Location, Country,Year. Volume, pp. Page range.

l   Conference Proceedings:
4. Author 1 FM, Author 2 FM, Author 3 FM, et al. Title of presentation. In: Proceedings of the Name of the Conference; Date of Conference (Day Month Year); Location (City, Country).

5. Author 1 FM, Author 2 FM, Author 3 FM. Title of presentation. In: Editor 1 FM, Editor 2 FM (editors). Title of Collected Work, Proceedings of the Name of the Conference; Date of Conference (Day Month Year); Location (City, Country). Publisher; Year.

l   Thesis:
6. Author FM. Title of Thesis [PhD thesis]. Degree-Granting University; Year.

l   Patent:

7. Patent Owner 1, Patent Owner 2, Patent Owner 3. Title of Patent. Patent Number, Date (Day Month Year, the Application granted date).

l   Papers in press:

8. Author 1 FM, Author 2 FM. Title of unpublished work. Journal Title. Year (if available), Phrase Indicating Stage of Publication (submitted, in press, etc.).

l   Websites:

9. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).
10. Title of Site. URL (archived on Day Month Year).

2.5. Preparing Figures, Schemes and Tables

File for Figures and Schemes must be provided during submission in a single zip archive and at a sufficiently high resolution (minimum 1000 pixels width/height, or a resolution of 300 dpi or higher). Common formats are accepted, however, TIFF, JPEG and PDF are preferred.

 

All Figures, Schemes and Tables should be inserted into the main text close to their first citation and must be numbered following their number of appearance (Figure 1, Scheme 1, Figure 2, Scheme 2, Table 1, etc.).

 

All Figures, Schemes and Tables should have a short explanatory title and caption.

 

All table columns should have an explanatory heading. To facilitate the copy-editing of larger tables, smaller fonts may be used, but no less than 8 pt. in size. Authors should use the Table option of Microsoft Word to create tables.

 

Authors are encouraged to prepare figures and schemes in color (RGB at 8-bit per channel). There is no additional cost for publishing full color graphics.

 

All figures, tables, and images will be published under a Creative Commons CC-BY license, and permission must be obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including re-published/adapted/modified/partial figures and images from the internet). It is the responsibility of the authors to acquire the licenses, follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.

3. Reviewer Suggestions

During the submission process, please suggest three potential reviewers with the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript. The editors will not necessarily approach these referees. Please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, e-mail address). The proposed referees should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last three years. Proposed reviewers should be from different institutions to the authors. You may identify appropriate Editorial Board members of the journal as potential reviewers. You may suggest reviewers from among the authors that you frequently cite in your paper.

4. Authorship

EIVX follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines which state that, in order to qualify for authorship of a manuscript, the following criteria should be observed:

l   Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

l   Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

l   Final approval of the version to be published; AND

l   Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Those who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments. More detailed guidance on authorship is given by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

 

Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication. We reserve the right to request confirmation that all authors meet the authorship conditions.

5. Open Access Policy, Copyright and Reuse

Gold Open Access model applies in EIVX Publishing. All articles are published with open access under the Creative Commons CC-BY license (the latest version is CC-BY 4.0). Which means:

l   free and unlimited access to publications, everyone can access to the full-text of all articles published in EIVX journals easily;

l  author(s) retains copyright, everyone is free to download, distribute and reuse (adapt for commercial or non-commercial purposes), if proper accreditation/citation of the original article is given;

l  publication costs are supported by an Article Processing Charge (APC). The APC is supported by the authors' institutes, research funding agencies or themselves.

For all articles published in EIVX journals, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.

6. Conflicts of Interest

According to The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "Authors should avoid entering into agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose."

 

All authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include but are not limited to financial interests (such as membership, employment, consultancies, stocks/shares ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, personal beliefs).

 

Authors can disclose potential conflicts of interest via the online submission system during the submission process. The corresponding author must include a summary statement in the manuscript in a separate section “Conflicts of Interest” placed just before the reference list. The statement should reflect all the collected potential conflicts of interest disclosures in the form.

 

See below for examples of disclosures:

l   Conflicts of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stocks in Company Y. Author C has been involved as a consultant and expert witness in Company Z. Author D is the inventor of patent X.

l   If no conflicts exist, the authors should state: Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

7. Al Use by authors

According to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, "AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work. As non-legal entities, they cannot assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest nor manage copyright and license agreements".

 

The pertinence of such tools may vary and evolve with public opinion, due to which the use of AI-powered language tools has led to a significant debate. These tools may generate useful results, but they can also lead to errors or misleading results; therefore, it is important to know which tools were used for evaluating and interpreting a particular scientific work.

 

Considering the above we require that:

(1)  The authors to report any significant use of such tools in their works, such as instruments and software along with text-to-text generative AI consistent with subject standards for methodology.

(2)  All co-authors should sign a declaration that they take full responsibility for all of its contents, regardless of how the contents were generated. Inappropriate language, plagiarized and biased contents, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content generated by AI language tools and the relevant results reported in scientific works are the full and shared responsibility of all the authors, including co-authors.

(3)  AI language tools should not be listed as an author; instead, authors should follow clause (1) above.

8. Research and Publication Ethics

8.1. Research Ethics

Research Involving Human Subjects

All studies involving human subjects must be in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and seek approval to conduct the study from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, institutional review board, etc.). Such approval, including the names of the ethics committee, institutional review board, etc., must be listed in a declaration statement of Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate in the manuscript. If the study is judged exempt from ethics approval, related information (e.g., name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason for the exemption) must be listed. Further documentation on ethics should also be prepared, as editors may request more detailed information. Manuscripts with suspected ethical problems will be investigated according to COPE guidelines.

 

Research Involving Animals

Experimental research on animals should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee and must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. EIVX encourages authors to comply with the AALAS Guidelines,  the ARRIVE Guidelines, and/or the ICLAS Guidelines, and obtain prior approval from the relevant ethics committee. Manuscripts must include a statement indicating that the study has been approved by the relevant ethical committee and the whole research process complies with ethical guidelines. If a study is granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason(s) for the exemption should be detailed. Editors will take account of animal welfare issues and reserve the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research.

Research Involving Cell Lines

Authors must describe what cell lines are used and their origin so that the research can be reproduced. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated and references must also be given to either a published paper or to a commercial source. For de novo cell lines derived from human tissue, appropriate approval from an institutional review board or equivalent ethical committee, and consent from the donor or next of kin, should be obtained. Such statements should be listed on the Declaration section of Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate in the manuscript.

Further information is available from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC). EIVX recommends that authors check the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines.

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field studies should be conducted in accordance with local legislation, and the manuscript should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licenses. EIVX recommends that authors comply with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and origin must be provided for plants that were utilized. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collections providing access to deposited materials.

Clinical Trials Registration

l   Registration

EIVX follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines which require and recommend registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for publication.

 

Purely observational studies do not require registration. A clinical trial not only refers to studies that take place in a hospital or involve pharmaceuticals, but also refer to all studies which involve participant randomization and group classification in the context of the intervention under assessment.

 

Authors are strongly encouraged to pre-register clinical trials with an international clinical trials register and cite a reference to the registration in the Methods section. Suitable databases include clinicaltrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register and those listed by the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

 

Approval to conduct a study from an independent local, regional, or national review body is not equivalent to prospective clinical trial registration. EIVX reserves the right to decline any paper without trial registration for further peer review. However, if the study protocol has been published before the enrolment, the registration can be waived with correct citation of the published protocol.

 

l   CONSORT Statement

EIVX requires a completed CONSORT 2010 checklist and flow diagram as a condition of submission when reporting the results of a randomized trial. Templates for these can be found here or on the CONSORT website (http://www.consort-statement.org) which also describes several CONSORT checklist extensions for different designs and types of data beyond two group parallel trials. At minimum, your article should report the content addressed by each item of the checklist.

Dual Use Research of Concern

EIVX follows the practical framework defined in Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations and introduced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Research that could pose a significant threat, with broad potential consequences to public health or national security, should be clearly indicated in the manuscript, and potential dual-use research of concern should be explained in the cover letter upon submission. Potential areas of concern include but are not limited to biosecurity, nuclear and chemical threats, and research with a military purpose or application, etc. For these manuscripts to be considered for peer review, the benefits to the general public or public health must outweigh the risks. The authors have a responsibility to comply with relevant national and international laws.

Sex and Gender in Research

We encourage our authors to follow the ‘Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines’ and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. We suggest that our authors consult the full guidelines before submission.

Borders and Territories

Potential disputes over borders and territories may have particular relevance for authors in describing their research or in an author or editor correspondence address, and should be respected. Content decisions are an editorial matter and where there is a potential or perceived dispute or complaint, the editorial team will attempt to find a resolution that satisfies parties involved.

EIVX stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

8.2. Publication Ethics Statement

Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. EIVX fully adhere to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Guidelines for Authors

Authors are responsible for the soundness and reliability of the manuscript, and must cooperate with the Editorial Office when original pictures and data, and other proof materials are required.

 

The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect the contributions of each individual to the study. Four basic criteria must be met collectively to be credited as an author:

l   Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;

l   Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

l   Final approval of the version to be published;

l   Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

 

Those who do not meet all four criteria (such as those who provide purely technical, or financial and material contributions to the work) should not be rewarded with authorship, but be listed in the Acknowledgment section.

 

The corresponding author is the one who takes primary responsibility for communicating with journal editors during manuscript processing, before and after publication, and typically ensures that all the journal's requirements are satisfied properly. This includes ensuring that all authors have agreed to be so listed and have approved submission of the manuscript to the journal, providing details of authorship, ethical committee approval and clinical trial registration documents, gathering conflict of interest forms, etc. In general, only one corresponding author is allowed. For multi-center trials or multidisciplinary studies, the list of clinicians and researchers is typically published with more corresponding authors. These additional authors should be academically responsible to different institutions or research groups.

 

The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors based on their contributions, and be agreed by all authors. Any changes to the author and/or institution lists should be approved by the responsible author (first author and/or corresponding author), and a formal proposal approved by all authors must be submitted to the Editorial Office to elucidate the reason(s).

 

Authors who contribute equally to the work should be identified at the time of submission. The number of first co-authors is generally not more than two. In the case of multi-center trials or multidisciplinary studies where there are indeed more than two first co-authors, then the list may be as appropriate for the situation. Those added to the list beyond two should come from different institutions or research groups.

 

For reporting clinical trials, the authors should follow relevant guidelines (such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for the reporting of randomized controlled trials, Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) for the reporting standards of non-randomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for the conduct and dissemination of observational studies, the Standards of Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD). In cases of clinical trial studies (randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, case reports, studies conducted on human subjects, or samples taken from the human body, even psychological and social studies involving questionnaires), the authors, in principle, should register the study in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and provide the registration number in the manuscript.

 

The authors should declare any possible financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interestin the title page & back matter, and cover letter, as well as confirm this point when submitting their manuscript in the submission system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors need to state “The authors declare no conflicts of interest”. In case of a conflict of interest, all economic interests that may have an impact on the results of their research (e.g., a commercial interest relationship with a company; a company providing funds for the experimental design and implementation, data processing, article writing; etc.) must be declared.

 

The authors must identify the organizations, institutions, or people who provided financial support for conducting the research and/or preparing the article at the time of submission.

 

If an author disagrees with the results of the peer reviews and the editor's decision, that author may submit a written challenge and make detailed interpretations and explanations for disagreeing with the reviewers’suggestions/editor's decision to the Editorial Office. The editor will then review this response and decide whether the reviewers made an error in judgement, or additional peer review is necessary. The editor’s decision at this point is final.

 

Authorship changes are not allowed after a manuscript is officially accepted after peer-review.

 

Authors are not allowed to revise data, figures, and key results during proofreading.

 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the manuscript in the form of an erratum.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are persons assisting in the evaluation of a manuscript with regard to its potential publication by the Publisher, wherein the person is considered an expert in the relevant field and is not employed by the Publisher. Reviewers have the following responsibilities:

 

To treat the manuscript and the review process as confidential:

l   The editor must be consulted before involving additional parties in reviewing the manuscript. The individual invited by the editor is fully responsible for the content of the review.

l   Neither the identity of the reviewer nor any other details of the review process may be revealed to third parties.

l   No part of the content of submitted, unpublished articles (data, information, interpretation, and discussion) may be shared with others.

l   The submitted manuscript may not be retained in any form after review is complete; reviewers must comply with data protection regulations as appropriate.

 

Not to use information (data, interpretation, and discussion) gained in confidence from submitted, unpublished articles for their own research.

 

To inform the editor without undue delay should they be unqualified or otherwise unable to review the manuscript.

 

To inform the editor if a conflict of interest becomes apparent at any point in the process. If in doubt, check with the editor. Potential conflicts of interest include but are not restricted to:

l   Cases where the reviewer has a close personal or professional relationship with any of the authors, for example, they are former supervisor or student, or a recent/frequent co-author or collaboration partner.

l   Cases where there is direct competition between the work reported and a current project the reviewer is involved with.

 

To review the manuscript in a timely fashion; the editor should be informed immediately if the reviewer is no longer able to review the manuscript or more time is needed.

To evaluate the work (including the Supporting Information) carefully and objectively; reviewers should explain and support their judgements, providing reference to published work where appropriate. References should be suggested based solely on relevance to the presented work.

To keep their comments to the author polite and professional, focusing on the content of the manuscript and avoiding personal criticism.

To inform the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and work that is already published or under consideration at other journals.

To alert the editor if there is any indication of potential ethical problems, including:

l   Any kind of scientific misconduct, for example, plagiarism or data manipulation.

l   Ethical concerns regarding animal experiments or studies involving human subjects.

l   Inadequately discussed hazards or dual-use concerns, that is, potential for the reported work to be misused in such a way as poses a threat to public health or safety.

Ethical Guidelines for Editors

Editors may be professional in-house editors or active researchers who take on an editorial role on behalf of the Publisher, and they make the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a submitted manuscript. The following responsibilities also apply to Editorial Board members where relevant.

Editors of Scientific Journals have the following responsibilities:

l   To base editorial decisions on the scientific merits of the work, without regard to institutional affiliation, nationality, race, gender, age, or other personal circumstances of the authors.

l   To make every effort to ensure a fair and timely evaluation/review process for submitted manuscripts.

l   To ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled in a confidential manner. No details should be disclosed to anyone except the reviewers without permission from the author, except where required as part of a formal investigation into allegations of unethical behavior.

l   To make known any conflicts of interest that might arise. This is especially important where the editor is an active researcher:

1. Where the editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent review.

2. Where the author is a current or former colleague and/or a frequent collaborator of the editor, the manuscript must be passed to a different editor for handling.

3. The editor may not use work reported in unpublished submitted manuscripts for their own work, and if the topic is too close to one of their own projects, the manuscript must be passed to a different editor for handling.

l   To choose reviewers carefully to ensure a fair review process:

1. Author-suggested reviewers should be used with caution to avoid positive bias (e.g., co-authors of previous publications or former supervisors/students should be avoided).

2. Contact details of author-suggested reviewers should be independently verified to ensure the integrity of the peer-review process.

3. The editor maintains the right to use reviewers of his/her own choice.

4. Specific named reviewers opposed by the authors should not be used unless there is a significant over-riding interest in doing so.

l   To ensure that the names and other details of reviewers are kept confidential. In exceptional circumstances, e.g., where ethical misconduct is suspected, adjudication reviewers may be informed of the names of prior reviewers.

l   To give fair and careful consideration to appeals against editorial decisions.

l   To comply with data protection regulations, as appropriate.

l   To follow up on any indications or allegations of questionable research practice.

 

Unethical Behaviors

EIVX makes all reasonable efforts to investigate publication misconduct, including but is not limited to:

 

l   Data fabrication and falsification

Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but made up data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but then changed some of the data. Both of these practices make people distrust scientists. If the public is mistrustful of science then it will be less willing to provide funding support.

l   Image Manipulation

Irregular manipulation includes: Introduction, enhancement, moving, or removing features from the original image; Grouping of images that should be presented separately; Modifying the contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or enhance some information.

l   Plagiarism

Presenting material, including results, ideas, and text, from someone else’s work as one's own. Also self-plagiarism: copying significant content from one’s own previous publications. Some reuse of text from the authors’ own (cited) work may be appropriate in an introduction or experimental section, but there should not be substantial overlap in the main discussion.

l   Inadequate citation

Submission of closely related papers without appropriate cross-referencing; failure to give due credit to prior work; deliberately neglecting to cite/discuss related work (including one’s own) to increase the apparent novelty of the results.

l   Publicity Citation manipulation

Authors should not publicize their work while their manuscript is under consideration or awaiting publication.

Authors should only cite references that are most relevant to their submitted works, and should refrain from excessively and unreasonably cite their own works for the purpose of boosting their citation metrics.

l   Multiple submissions

It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of journals if published in more than one.

l   Improper author contribution or attribution

All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has detailed guidelines on authorship that are useful for scientists in all fields.

EIVX reserves the right to contact the authors’ institution(s) to investigate possible publication misconduct if the editors find conclusive evidence of misconduct before or after publication. All submissions are checked for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation will take place and action taken in accordance with our policies.

Citation Policies

Authors should ensure that where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing) the source is clearly cited and that where appropriate permission is obtained.

l   Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their own work.

l   Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

l   Authors should not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.

l   Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.

In accordance with COPE guidelines, we expect that "original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.‘’ This condition also applies to an author’s own work. COPE have produced a discussion document on citation manipulation with recommendations for best practice.

 Comments and Complaints

Readers who have concerns or complaints about published papers should first contact the corresponding author to attempt a resolution directly, before contacting the Editorial Office.

The Editorial Office may be contacted in cases where it is not appropriate to contact the authors, if the authors were not responsive, or if the concerns were not resolved. The Editorial Office will coordinate with the complainant, author/s and Editors-in-Chief or Editorial Board members for the investigation, remedy or resolution of any concerns or complaints.

Complaints, comments, or update requests relating to scholarly validity, ethical or legal aspects of either the paper or its review process will be investigated further where appropriate. All complaints, comments or update requests relating to published papers are investigated by the Editorial Office with the support of the Editorial Board and final approval by the Editor-in-Chief. For ethical concerns, final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members who are supported by the Editorial Office to promote adherence to core principles of publication ethics as expressed by the COPE. Other persons and institutions will be consulted as necessary, including university authorities, or experts in the field. Legal counsel may be sought where the complaint has legal implications.

Personal comments or criticisms will not be entertained. All complaints are investigated, including anonymous complaints. Complainants may request that the Editorial Office handle their complaint confidentially and the Editorial Office, any Editors-in-Chief or other Editorial Board members will attempt to do so insofar as is appropriate and in accordance with our internal procedures.

If a complaint is not considered to be substantiated, then further communication will only be considered if additional information evidencing concerns is presented.

Complainants might not be updated about the status of an investigation until a final decision has been reached, however complainants will be notified if an update is published. The Editorial Office and Editorial Board members are under no obligation to present further detail. Communication will be ended where it is not considered cordial or respectful. Readers with complaints or concerns should be aware that investigations take time to conduct.

When raising concerns to the Editorial Office, please use the "Feedback, suggestion, question" to let us know the details, and, in addition to details about the paper, please also include details of the complaint, its scholarly, scientific or academic validity, a summary of the main points and any other issues, details of any correspondence already had with the authors and a statement clarifying any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest.