• Equitable Participation: MJBD encourages submissions from a broad range of authors, including those from underrepresented groups and regions, to ensure a rich diversity of voices and perspectives in the published content.
• Inclusive Peer Review: The journal seeks to involve reviewers and editorial board members from diverse backgrounds, promoting an inclusive review process that respects and values different viewpoints and expertise.
• Bias Mitigation: MJBD is dedicated to implementing practices that identify and mitigate bias in the editorial process, from manuscript submission to peer review and decision-making, ensuring fairness and equity for all participants.
• Accessibility: The journal commits to making its content accessible to a wide audience, including the implementation of practices that enhance the readability and usability of published research for individuals with disabilities.
• Education and Training: MJBD will provide its editors, reviewers, and staff with training and resources to understand the importance of diversity and inclusivity and to cultivate an environment that supports these values.

• Regularly review and update its policies and practices to enhance diversity and inclusivity.
• Monitor and report on the diversity of its authors, reviewers, and editorial board members, setting specific goals for improvement.
• Encourage authors to consider diversity in their research design, analysis, and interpretation of results, acknowledging the potential impact of their work on various communities.
• Provide guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors on recognizing and addressing implicit biases.
• Foster collaborations with organizations and initiatives aimed at increasing participation and representation in scientific research and publishing.

All submissions to MJBD detailing research that involves human participants, human tissues, or human data must include a statement confirming that such research has been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This includes obtaining approval from an authorized ethical committee and ensuring informed consent from all participants. Similarly, research involving animals must adhere to international standards and ethical guidelines, ensuring humane treatment and ethical consideration.

Authors must provide the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board that approved the study, along with the approved reference number/ID. A clear statement affirming that participants provided informed consent before their participation is also required. MJBD reserves the right to seek additional editorial inquiries from reviewers concerning the ethical implications of any study, ensuring that all research we publish meets our ethical expectations.

In cases where allegations of publishing misconduct arise, MJBD is committed to conducting thorough investigations, potentially involving authors' institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies. Our dedication to ethical scrutiny extends both before and after publication, with procedures in place to address any substantiated evidence of misconduct. This may include the publication of a retraction or correction, as deemed necessary, to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

MJBD emphasizes that ethical clearance should be obtained prior to the commencement of research. It is generally not possible to gain retrospective ethical clearance, and submissions lacking prior ethical approval may not be considered for peer review. The decision to proceed with such submissions rests at the discretion of the journal's editors, who assess the ethical soundness of each study.

All authors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that could potentially influence the peer review, presentation, editorial decision-making, or publication of their manuscripts. Conflicts of interest may be financial, personal, or professional and must be openly declared to ensure transparency and maintain trust in the research process.

Authors must ensure their submissions are entirely original works. Any use of the work and words of others must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and is subject to stringent measures against it.

Authors should be prepared to provide access to their raw data in connection with their paper for review by the editors and should also retain such data for a reasonable time after publication to facilitate further inquiry.

Publishing multiple manuscripts detailing the same research across different journals or primary publications is unethical. Concurrent submissions of the same manuscript to different journals are not permitted.

Authors must acknowledge all sources of data used in their research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Anyone who has made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. This includes any financial, personal, or professional relationships that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Financial support for the project should also be disclosed.

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly inform the editors or publisher and collaborate with them to correct or retract the paper as necessary.

The use of artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies in research and manuscript preparation must be clearly disclosed. Authors are responsible for ensuring the ethical use of such technologies and for maintaining the integrity of their contributions.

Reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and, through constructive feedback, help authors enhance the quality of their manuscripts. Their insights and assessment must be objective and aimed at facilitating scientific discourse.

If a selected reviewer feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that prompt review will be impossible, they should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor overseeing the review process.

Review must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments that help authors improve their work.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also alert the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Comments and recommendations should be formulated clearly and supported by arguments to help authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers should refrain from making derogatory comments.

A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and should bring these to the attention of the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap with any other manuscript they are aware of.

Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish are not influenced by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Editors are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, and the reviewers’ comments. Furthermore, editors should ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.

Editors should provide clear guidelines to authors for the preparation and submission of manuscripts and ensure that reviewers are aware of their responsibilities and standards of expected ethical behavior. They should also ensure that peer reviewers' identities are protected.

Editors should regularly monitor the ethical standards of their journals and work to improve them as necessary. This includes developing and updating guidelines for ethical publishing and investigating allegations of unethical conduct.

Editors should seek feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers for the improvement of the journal’s processes and should encourage responsible conduct of research and publishing ethics among authors and reviewers.

Editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper, including issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern as appropriate.

Upon receiving allegations of unethical behavior, a preliminary assessment will be conducted to determine the validity of the claims. This assessment may involve direct communication with the parties involved and a review of the evidence.

In cases of minor breaches, a warning may be issued to the individual(s) involved, detailing the nature of the violation and reminding them of the publication's ethical standards.

For serious ethical violations related to a published work, such as plagiarism, fabrication of data, or duplications, the publication may retract the article or require a formal correction or retraction notice to be published, clarifying the nature of the ethical violation.

Authors found to have committed serious ethical violations may be prohibited from submitting any new manuscripts to the journal for a period determined by the severity of the infraction.

Editors or reviewers who consistently fail to follow ethical guidelines, or who abuse their positions, may be removed from their roles within the journal.

In cases of severe ethical violations, the journal may contact the offender's affiliated institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies to inform them of the misconduct and the sanctions applied.

Individuals found guilty of gross ethical misconduct may be permanently banned from submitting to the journal in the future.

Depending on the severity and nature of the ethical violation, the journal may opt to publicly disclose the details of the misconduct and the sanctions applied, ensuring transparency with the academic community and readership.

All research and publication activities must adhere to the relevant laws and regulations of the jurisdictions in which they are conducted. This includes but is not limited to data protection laws, copyright laws, and regulations governing human and animal research.

The privacy and confidentiality of research participants must be safeguarded. Personal data should be anonymized whenever possible, and sensitive information must be handled with the utmost care, following all applicable data protection guidelines.

For research involving human participants, obtaining informed consent is a critical requirement. Consent documents should clearly communicate the scope of the study, the use of data collected, and any potential risks or benefits to participants. The documentation of informed consent must be available for review by the editors if necessary.

Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must have received ethical approval from the appropriate institutional review boards or ethics committees. Authors should provide evidence of such approval upon submission of their manuscript and include details in the published work.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. This includes obtaining permissions for the use of copyrighted material and respecting patent rights.

The sources of funding for research should be transparently disclosed in the manuscript. Any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial, personal, or otherwise, that could influence the research or interpretation of findings, must be clearly stated.

The welfare of research participants must always be a priority. Studies should be designed and conducted in a manner that minimizes risk and protects the dignity, rights, and well-being of participants.

When dealing with sensitive or classified information, authors must ensure that their publication does not compromise security or privacy. The publication of such information should be in line with ethical considerations and legal restrictions.

Manuscripts submitted for publication must represent original research not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. This includes journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and any other forms of primary publication.

Authors must disclose any related submissions to other publications at the time of submission. This includes works in progress, submitted, accepted, or published elsewhere that are closely related to the manuscript under consideration.

On rare occasions, there may be a valid reason for submitting closely related work to more than one publication simultaneously. In such cases, authors must provide a clear and compelling rationale for the concurrent submission, detailing how the submissions differ and why separate publications are warranted.

Submitting multiple manuscripts based on a single research project or dataset, divided to increase the number of publications rather than for valid scientific reasons, is discouraged. Such practices can fragment the scientific record and make it difficult for readers to access the full context of the research.

If parts of the manuscript overlap with previously published work, authors must cite these works appropriately, providing context for the contribution of the new submission beyond the existing literature.

Authors bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that their submissions comply with the one-time publication principle. They should carefully consider the novelty and originality of their work in the context of their broader research output.

Editors play a critical role in verifying the originality of submissions and their compliance with the one-time publication principle. Through the use of plagiarism detection software and careful review of authors' publication histories, editors help maintain the scholarly record's integrity.

Reviewers are obligated to treat the manuscripts they review and all associated communications as confidential. The sharing or discussion of any part of the manuscript with unauthorized parties is strictly prohibited unless explicit permission has been granted by the editor overseeing the manuscript's review.

Editors bear the primary responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of the submission and review process. This includes safeguarding submitted materials, communications with reviewers, and any other information related to the manuscript under consideration. Only those directly involved in the editorial process have access to this information.

While the reviewers' identities are shielded from the authors, the converse is not true in a single-blind review system. Despite the authors' identities being known to the reviewers, it is imperative that this information does not influence the review's objectivity.

Under no circumstances may reviewers or editors use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

Any deliberate breach of the confidentiality guidelines by reviewers or editors is considered a serious ethical violation. Consequences may include removal from the journal's editorial or reviewer roster and, if necessary, further actions such as notification to the violator’s institution or professional bodies.

Ensuring confidentiality also serves to safeguard the authors' intellectual property until their work is officially published. This principle is fundamental to respecting and preserving the original contributions of authors to their field of study.

While the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to authors, editors may share reviewers' comments and recommendations with the authors to enhance their manuscript. All such communications must strictly adhere to the confidentiality rules established by our journal.

Reviewers should assess their own potential conflicts of interest with respect to the manuscript they are asked to review. This includes any financial, academic, personal, or other relationships that might influence their evaluation of the manuscript.

Before accepting to review a manuscript, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors. This disclosure should include all relevant information that could question the reviewer's objectivity or which could be perceived as a potential source of bias.

Upon disclosure of a potential conflict of interest, editors will assess the nature of the conflict to determine whether the reviewer can provide an objective assessment. Depending on the circumstances, the editor may decide to:

• Proceed with the review, if the conflict is deemed manageable or insignificant.
• Assign the manuscript to another reviewer if the conflict could potentially bias the review process.

Even after disclosing a conflict of interest, reviewers are obliged to maintain confidentiality about the manuscript and the review process. The details of the conflict should not be disclosed to third parties without explicit permission from the editor.

If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest that could bias their review, they should recuse themselves from the review process. It is better to avoid participating in the review than to risk compromising the integrity of the evaluation.

The journal provides guidance for reviewers on how to identify and disclose potential conflicts of interest. This guidance helps ensure that reviewers are aware of what constitutes a conflict and the importance of disclosure.

Reviewers are encouraged to reassess their potential conflicts of interest throughout the review process and to report any new conflicts to the editor as soon as they arise.

Editorial board members are responsible for maintaining and enhancing the journal's quality, accuracy, and integrity. They play a crucial role in setting and upholding academic and ethical standards for publications.

While not directly involved in the day-to-day review of manuscripts, board members may be called upon to provide expert evaluation for complex cases or when a conflict of interest is identified among regular reviewers. Their expertise ensures the high quality of accepted manuscripts.

Board members advise on journal policy and scope. They may suggest improvements, identify topics for special issues, and recommend strategies to enhance the journal’s profile and impact within the scientific community.

Members promote the journal to colleagues, at academic conferences, and through other venues to attract high-quality submissions and subscriptions. They serve as ambassadors of the journal, enhancing its reputation and reach.

Often, board members take on the role of guest editors for special issues aligned with their areas of expertise. This includes managing the call for papers, overseeing the review process, and making decisions on submissions.

Editorial board members are key to enforcing the journal’s ethical guidelines, handling allegations of misconduct, and ensuring the integrity of the publication process. They support the editor-in-chief in maintaining the journal’s adherence to ethical standards.

Board members may be involved in resolving disputes or conflicts related to manuscript submissions, authorship, reviews, and ethical concerns. Their expertise and impartiality help ensure fair and just outcomes.

Senior members of the editorial board may mentor new reviewers, editors, and board members, sharing insights into the peer review process, editorial decision-making, and the ethical responsibilities associated with scholarly publishing.

Board members may engage with the academic community through conferences, seminars, and workshops to gather feedback, understand community needs, and discuss the journal's direction and policies.

They are involved in the continuous evaluation and improvement of the journal’s policies, workflows, and editorial practices, aiming to enhance the efficiency, fairness, and transparency of the publication process.

Authors are expected to obtain ethical approval from the appropriate institutional review boards or ethics committees before initiating research. This approval serves as a cornerstone of ethical research practices, ensuring that the study complies with international norms and protects the rights and well-being of participants.

Retrospective ethical clearance is typically not acceptable because it undermines the proactive assessment of potential risks and ethical considerations integral to the research design. Studies conducted without prior ethical approval may face significant scrutiny, and their findings may be questioned for ethical rigor.

Manuscripts based on research that has not secured ethical approval prior to commencement may not be considered for peer review or publication. The decision to review such submissions lies at the discretion of the journal's editors, who may weigh the ethical implications against the scientific value and potential impact of the research.

When submitting manuscripts, authors must provide documentation of ethical approval or justify the absence of such approval. This documentation should include the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board that granted approval, the approval number, and a statement affirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants.

In exceptional cases where retrospective consideration might be given, the journal's editors will evaluate the circumstances, such as the nature of the ethical oversight and steps taken by the authors to address any potential harm or ethical concerns. The ultimate decision will reflect a balance between ethical integrity and the potential contribution of the research to the field.

Editors and reviewers play a critical role in assessing the ethical adequacy of research methodologies. They must scrutinize the ethical documentation provided and may request further clarification or evidence of ethical considerations, especially in cases where the ethical approval process is ambiguous or incomplete.

The journal is committed to upholding ethical standards in all published research. Authors, reviewers, and editors are urged to prioritize ethical considerations in their work, reinforcing the journal's commitment to integrity, transparency, and respect for human and animal rights.

All research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must comply with international, national, and institutional guidelines. For human research, this includes adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki or equivalent ethical standards. Animal research should follow guidelines such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, ensuring humane treatment and ethical scientific practices.

Prior to the initiation of the research, approval must be obtained from an appropriate IRB or ethics committee. This approval confirms that the ethical implications of the research have been thoroughly reviewed and deemed acceptable. Documentation of this approval must be submitted along with the manuscript.

Informed consent is a cornerstone of ethical research involving humans. Researchers must ensure that all participants (or their legal guardians) understand the nature of the research, the procedures involved, potential risks and benefits, and their rights to decline participation or withdraw at any time without penalty. Written informed consent should be obtained from all participants, and the process for obtaining consent should be detailed in the manuscript.

The privacy and confidentiality of research participants must be protected. Identifiable information should be anonymized in the manuscript and any published results. Special care must be taken with sensitive data to prevent unauthorized access or disclosure.

Research involving animals must prioritize their welfare, employing methods that minimize pain, suffering, and distress. Studies should justify the use of animals, detail the care and handling of the subjects, and demonstrate efforts to refine procedures to enhance animal welfare.

Both human and animal research must employ rigorous methodological standards, ensuring that the study design is scientifically valid and capable of answering the research question without unnecessary use of subjects.

Any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the conduct or reporting of research involving humans or animals must be disclosed. This includes financial interests, personal relationships, or professional affiliations that might be perceived as influencing the research outcomes.

If ethical concerns arise after the publication of research involving humans or animals, the journal is committed to investigating the issues in accordance with COPE guidelines and, if necessary, taking appropriate action, such as publishing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.

Authors are expected to present their research findings clearly, concisely, and without omission. This includes providing a detailed methodology that allows for the replication of results, a thorough analysis, and an unbiased discussion of the study's significance and limitations. Manuscripts should follow the recommended reporting guidelines relevant to their research design, such as CONSORT for randomized trials or STROBE for observational studies.

All submissions must represent original research not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere. Manuscripts should contribute new knowledge, insights, or value to the field of study. Authors must ensure their work is free from plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, and appropriately cite or quote sources that have influenced their research.

Whenever possible, authors should provide access to the data underlying their findings, allowing others in the scientific community to validate, reuse, or extend the research. Exceptions to this expectation should be clearly justified. The journal encourages the use of supplementary material to make raw data available or the citation of data repositories where the data can be accessed.

Authors have an obligation to properly acknowledge the work of others used in their research. This includes citing relevant literature that has contributed to the design, interpretation, or analysis of the study. Failure to appropriately cite prior work constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

Authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Additionally, all sources of financial support for the project, including grants, sponsorships, and patents, should be disclosed.

Research involving humans or animals must be accompanied by statements regarding the ethical approval of study protocols by relevant ethics committees, as well as the informed consent obtained from study participants or their guardians.

Should authors identify errors in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal to correct or retract the paper as appropriate. The journal is committed to publishing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

• Substantial Contributions: Individuals claiming authorship must have significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. This includes participating in the ideation, research, analysis, or drafting significant portions of the manuscript.
• Drafting and Revising: Authors should be involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content. This ensures that all authors have a stake in the manuscript’s content and are prepared to defend its conclusions.
• Approval of the Final Version: All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript to be published. This approval signifies that each author takes public responsibility for the content of the manuscript.
• Accountability: Authors must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. This involves ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributions that do not meet all the above criteria for authorship should be recognized as contributorship. Contributors might include individuals who provided technical help, writing assistance, general support, data collection, or financial funding. Contributions should be acknowledged in a dedicated “Acknowledgments” section, detailing the nature of the contribution and thanking contributors by name.

The list and order of authors should be agreed upon early in the writing process, with any changes in authorship—such as additions, deletions, or rearrangement of author names—requiring the consensus of all authors, including those being added or removed. Changes in authorship after submission or publication should be accompanied by a clear explanation and justification, and are subject to the approval of the journal editors.

In the case of authorship disputes, the journal expects the authors to resolve the issues collectively. If the dispute cannot be resolved internally, the institution or a mediator may be consulted. The journal may hold the publication process until a resolution is reached.

To promote transparency, journals may require authors to specify the individual contributions of each co-author. This can be included as a note or a separate section in the manuscript, clarifying the roles and responsibilities.

Authors should discuss and agree upon the order and inclusion of authors based on their contributions to the work before submitting the manuscript. All listed authors must have agreed to be named and must fulfill the criteria for authorship.

Any request to change the authorship (including adding or removing authors or changing the order of authors) after submission must be a joint decision of all original authors. The request should be made in writing to the journal editor, explaining the reason for the change. All authors, including those being added or removed, must agree to any proposed changes. The journal may require confirmation of agreement from all authors involved and may request further justification or documentation as part of its due diligence process.

In cases of authorship disputes, the journal encourages the authors to resolve the issue collaboratively and amicably. If the dispute arises during the review or publication process, the journal reserves the right to halt the process until the dispute is resolved. If authors cannot resolve the dispute independently, they may need to refer the matter to their institution or an independent mediator for resolution. The journal may engage with the corresponding institution(s) or follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) if necessary. The journal expects all parties involved to adhere to ethical standards in resolving authorship disputes, ensuring fairness and transparency.

Changes to authorship after publication are highly discouraged and may only be considered under exceptional circumstances, such as evidence of forgotten or deserving authors, or in cases where authorship criteria were not met initially. Such changes require publication of a correction notice or erratum, detailing the nature of the change. To request any changes in authorship, the journal must receive a completed authorship change form that is signed by all authors and provides a reason for the requested change. In cases where misconduct in authorship arrangement is discovered after publication, the journal may retract the article or publish a statement of concern or correction, depending on the situation's specifics.

• Individual Contributions: This section should list individuals who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship, including those who provided technical help, writing assistance, or general support. For each individual listed, authors should briefly describe the nature of the contribution.
• Institutional Support: Acknowledge any support received from institutions, including access to equipment, facilities, or resources.
• Financial Support: Authors must disclose all sources of funding for the research, specifying the role of the funding body in the design of the study, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and in writing the manuscript, if applicable.
• Permissions: Acknowledge permissions obtained for the use of copyrighted material not owned by the authors.

• Detailed Author Contributions: For transparency and accountability, authors are encouraged to specify the contribution of each co-author to the manuscript. This can include, but is not limited to, conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing (original draft preparation and review and editing), visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition.
• Collaborator Acknowledgments: Collaborators who contributed to the work but whose roles do not justify authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments section with a description of their contribution.

• Consent: Authors should ensure they have consent from all individuals mentioned in the acknowledgments section before publication.
• Conflict of Interest: Any potential conflict of interest related to the acknowledged contributions or financial support must be clearly stated.

Journals may require authors to provide a form or statement outlining the specific contributions of each co-author and acknowledged individual to ensure clarity and prevent disputes.

Implementing detailed acknowledgments and contributions sections supports the ethical publication of academic research by ensuring that all participants who contributed significantly to the work are appropriately recognized. This practice fosters a culture of transparency and integrity within the academic community, encouraging collaboration and the ethical conduct of research and publication.

Individuals involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, must regularly assess their activities for any potential conflicts of interest that could affect the impartiality of their work.

• Authors: At the time of manuscript submission, authors are required to disclose any relationships or activities that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest. This includes, but is not limited to, financial interests (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and patents) and personal relationships or affiliations that could influence the research.
• Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias their evaluation of a manuscript. If a significant conflict exists, they should recuse themselves from the review process.
• Editors: Editors should also disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from handling submissions where such conflicts may compromise their objectivity.

Upon disclosure, journals will assess the nature of the disclosed conflicts and determine whether a COI may influence the research or publication process. Depending on the situation, measures may be taken to manage the conflict, such as involving additional, independent reviewers, delegating editorial decisions to other editors, or publishing a disclosure statement alongside the article. Journals should have clear policies and procedures for handling disclosed conflicts of interest to ensure that decisions are made transparently and fairly.

Journals may choose to publish COI disclosures to inform readers, allowing them to consider potential biases while evaluating the research. The decision to publish such information should be consistent and apply to all articles.

Journals and academic institutions should educate their contributors and staff about the importance of disclosing conflicts of interest and the potential impact of COI on the credibility and integrity of research.

Policies on conflicts of interest should be regularly reviewed and updated as necessary to address emerging ethical challenges and maintain the highest standards of integrity in scholarly publishing.