Editorial Policies

Authors should use the Acknowledgements section for two primary purposes: (1) to recognize individuals who made significant contributions to the work but do not fulfill authorship criteria, and (2) to disclose pertinent funding information. Individuals who meet our authorship criteria must be listed as authors rather than acknowledged contributors. In multi-regional collaborative projects that involve local researchers, authors are strongly urged to give careful consideration to contribution assessments and authorship determinations as a means of fostering equity in research collaborations.

This section is not the appropriate location for declaring competing interests, particularly those involving funding organizations with potential financial stakes in the publication's outcomes. All such declarations must be submitted separately as a Competing Interests statement. For comprehensive guidance, please refer to the competing interests policy. Acknowledgements should be kept brief and must not include thanks to anonymous reviewers or editors, unnecessary verbiage, or overly elaborate expressions of gratitude.

Appealing Editorial Decisions

Authors seeking reconsideration of a manuscript rejection should initially contact the Handling Editor following the procedures outlined on the RevisX website. Please note that active submissions currently under review take precedence; consequently, appeal decisions may require additional processing time. The editorial team retains final authority on all appeal outcomes.

Authors wishing to contest an editorial decision should consult the RevisX website for specific instructions on submitting appeals. When appeals are granted, authors will receive guidance regarding the subsequent handling of their manuscript.

Lodging Complaints

The procedures outlined below apply to complaints concerning process failures (such as excessive delays in manuscript handling) and publication ethics matters (such as author misconduct). For complaints specifically regarding manuscript rejection decisions, please refer to the appeals policy described above.

Process-Related Complaints

Complaints addressing process failures should initially be directed to the Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief overseeing RevisX and/or the Editor who managed the manuscript in question. Procedural Issues (e.g., review timelines)

The Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Handling Editor (when applicable) and/or a member of the editorial staff (when applicable), will conduct an investigation into the matter. The complainant will receive appropriate feedback regarding the findings. Relevant stakeholders are provided with feedback to facilitate improvements in processes and procedures.

Publication Ethics Concerns (e.g., misconduct by researchers, authors, editors, or reviewers)

The Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will adhere to guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics. When cases are particularly difficult or complex, External Editors-in-Chief or Handling Editors will consult with their in-house contact for guidance. The Chief Editor/Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editor, or editorial staff (where applicable) determines the appropriate course of action and communicates feedback to the complainant.

RevisX is actively monitoring developments in artificial intelligence and will update these policies as needed

AI and Authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, cannot be listed as authors. Authorship requires accountability for the work, which AI tools cannot provide.

If you use an LLM in your research, you must document this in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your manuscript does not have a Methods section, document it in another appropriate section. You do not need to declare the use of LLMs for "AI-assisted copy editing." We define this as using AI to improve human-written text for readability and style, and to fix errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone. AI-assisted copy editing may include changes to wording and formatting, but does not include generating new content or autonomous editorial work. A human must take responsibility for the final text, and all authors must agree that the edits reflect their original work.

AI-Generated Images

Generative AI image creation raises new legal copyright and research integrity concerns. We follow existing copyright law and publication ethics best practices. Because legal issues around AI-generated images and videos remain unresolved, RevisX cannot currently permit their use in publications.

Exceptions

• Images and videos directly discussed in articles specifically about AI (these will be reviewed individually)
• Images from generative AI tools built using specific scientific datasets that can be attributed, checked, and verified for accuracy, as long as ethics, copyright, and usage terms are followed

Note:*All exceptions must be clearly labeled as AI-generated within the image field.

We expect rapid developments in this area and will review and update this policy regularly as needed.

Important note: Not all AI tools are generative. If you use non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine, or enhance existing images or figures, you must disclose this in the relevant caption when you submit your manuscript. This allows case-by-case review.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations help editors make decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers because of their deep knowledge of the subject matter or methods being evaluated. This expertise is invaluable and cannot be replaced. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views in their reports, and peer review operates on mutual trust between authors, reviewers, and editors.

Despite recent progress, generative AI tools have significant limitations: they may lack current knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, while RevisX explores providing peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, we ask that peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If you use an AI tool to support any part of your evaluation of the manuscript's claims, please declare this transparently in your peer review report.

Editorial use of AI

RevisX may occasionally use internal AI tools developed by our technical team or approved by RevisX management team to help generate supplementary content, such as summary points or automate recurring editorial work that doesn’t need human intervention or involvement. This content is always edited and fact-checked by the author and/or editor to meet RevisX publication standards. Any substantial use of AI beyond supplementary content will be declared on each individual article.

Supplementary content may include key points, editorial summaries, glossary terms, plain language summaries, and social media posts.

Who Can Be An Author?

Authorship gives credit for a researcher's contributions to a study and comes with accountability. To be listed as an author, each person must meet ALL of the following criteria:

RevisX encourages collaboration with colleagues in the locations where research is conducted. We expect their inclusion as co-authors when they meet all the authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Writing Assistance

Professional writing assistance must be acknowledged in the manuscript. RevisX does not accept non-primary research manuscripts (such as reviews, commentaries, or perspectives) that have been authored by professional medical writers. However, writing assistance should be acknowledged in all article types. Contributors who helped with writing but don't meet authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Inclusion and Ethics in Global Research

RevisX encourages collaboration with local researchers in the locations where research is conducted. We expect their inclusion as co-authors when they meet the authorship criteria. We urge researchers to carefully consider researcher contributions and authorship criteria when involved in multi-region collaborations so as to promote greater equity in research collaborations.

We encourage researchers to follow the recommendations in the Global Code of Conduct for Research in Resource-Poor Settings when designing, conducting, and reporting their research. Editors may ask authors to provide a disclosure statement during peer review that addresses:

This disclosure may be shared with reviewers and published in the final paper as an "Ethics & Inclusion statement" in the Methods section.

Consortium Authorship

A group of authors can be listed as a consortium. Individual authors can be listed both in the main author list and as members of a consortium. All authors within a consortium must be listed at the end of the paper. If you need to include a list of consortium members who did not directly contribute to the paper, this list can be placed in the Supplementary Information. If your manuscript has a large author list, please contact the journal editor before submission.

Author Contribution Statements

RevisX requires transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that specifies what each author contributed to the work. This statement will be published with the paper.

RevisX requires transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that specifies what each author contributed to the work. This statement will be published with the paper.

Author Identification

To improve transparency and attribution, corresponding authors of published papers must provide their Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) iD. Co-authors are encouraged to provide ORCID iDs.

Author Name Changes

An author who has changed their name may request that their name, pronouns, and other relevant biographical information be corrected on papers published before the change. The author can choose for this correction to happen without a note on the paper, or they may issue a formal public Author Correction.

For authors who wish to correct their name on published works, please contact RevisX editorial staff.

Submission Requirements

RevisX does not require all authors to sign the submission letter, and we do not impose an order on the author list. However, submission means that all listed authors have agreed to all contents, including the author list and author contribution statements.

The corresponding author is responsible for:

For multi-group collaborations, at least one member of each collaborating group (usually the most senior member) who accepts responsibility for their team's contributions must ensure that:

After Publication

The corresponding author is responsible for informing all co-authors of any matters arising from the published paper and ensuring such matters are dealt with promptly. All authors have a responsibility to inform RevisX immediately if they become aware of any aspects that require correction.

Changes to the Author List

Any changes to the author list after submission (such as changes in author order, or adding or deleting authors) must be approved by every author. Changes to authorship or corresponding author designation, and changes in the sequence of authors, are not permitted after a manuscript is accepted.

RevisX editors cannot investigate or resolve authorship disputes before or after publication. If disputes cannot be resolved among authors, they should be directed to the relevant institutional authority.

Author Affiliations

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where most of their work was done. If an author has moved, their current address may also be stated. RevisX remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Author names are listed in Roman alphabet characters as standard. Authors may request to include their names in non-Roman characters in parentheses after the Roman-character spelling. Please contact the editorial office to discuss this option.

RevisX follows the recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network for registration and reporting of clinical studies.

What Is Clinical Research?

Clinical research includes any research conducted with human participants, including interventional trials, observational studies, case reports, systematic reviews, and biomarker studies.

Trial Registration

All interventional trials must be registered before the first participant is enrolled. Trial registration records must be available in one of the following:

• A primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)
• ClinicalTrials.gov
• Any publicly accessible database that meets the minimum 24-item trial registration dataset

The trial registration number must be clearly stated in both the abstract and methods section of the manuscript. RevisX cannot consider trials with retrospective registration or registration in databases that are not publicly accessible.

Study Protocol

To help our editorial team and reviewers properly assess your work, we may request a copy of the approved study protocol, including the statistical analysis plan. Sensitive content can be removed. If the original protocol is in a language other than English, please provide a translation. Any differences from the plan shown in the trial registry or study protocol must be explained.

Interim and Exploratory Analyses

Interim analyses should be pre-specified in the study protocol. Preliminary analyses of ongoing clinical trials that were not pre-specified must be justified and will be considered case-by-case. Unplanned post-hoc or exploratory analyses must be clearly identified as such in both the abstract and manuscript text.

Reporting Guidelines

Clinical research must follow established reporting guidelines based on study type:

• Case reports or case series: If performed as a clinical trial with a single patient, follow the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials. If treatment is provided outside a clinical trial (such as compassionate use or experimental observational study), the research protocol must be approved by an IRB and ethics committee, and participants must give written informed consent, following CARE guidelines and Declaration of Helsinki principles.
• Randomized trials: Must follow CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Submit the CONSORT checklist with your manuscript along with the protocol. Non-randomized trials are encouraged to use CONSORT principles when reporting results. Reports that do not follow CONSORT guidelines may need revision before formal review.
• Observational studies (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional designs): Must follow the STROBE statement.
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: Must follow PRISMA guidelines.
• Biomarker studies: Studies reporting biomarkers with clinical outcomes should follow STARD guidelines. For oncology biomarker studies, follow REMARK guidelines.
• Epidemiology studies: Encouraged to follow recommendations in the GATHER statement.

Data Sharing

All original research manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement. RevisX is committed to transparency in data availability. Authors must provide a clear statement that summarizes:

• What data is available
• When the data is available
• To whom the data is available
• How to access the data
• Any restrictions to data access

Following ICMJE recommendations, all clinical trials must include a data sharing plan in the trial's registration. If the data sharing plan changes after registration, this should be reflected in the statement submitted and published with the manuscript, and the registry record should be updated.

Competing Interests

To help readers form their own judgments about potential bias, RevisX requires authors to declare any competing financial or non-financial interests related to the work. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing interests statement on behalf of all authors.

The role of any sponsor at any stage of the study, including manuscript preparation, must be acknowledged.

At RevisX, we believe that mutual respect builds trust and helps us deliver quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve. Our staff are expected to behave professionally and respectfully at all times when working with authors, reviewers, and readers. We expect the same standards of behavior from the academic community and the public when they interact with our staff.

We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, harassment, bullying, or discrimination directed at RevisX staff. If serious violations occur, we may report them to employers or local authorities. We may also refuse to work with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy.

To help readers form their own judgments about potential bias, RevisX requires authors to declare any competing financial or non-financial interests related to the work described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing interests statement on behalf of all authors.

What Are Competing Interests?

Competing interests are financial and non-financial interests that could directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity, and value of a publication through a potential influence on the judgments and actions of authors regarding objective data presentation, analysis, and interpretation.

Financial Competing Interests

Financial competing interests include any of the following:

• Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses) from organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication. Any specific role of the funder in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript should be disclosed.
• Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present, or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
• Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of payment (including reimbursements for attending symposia) from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication. For patents and patent applications, please disclose: patent applicant (author or institution), name of inventor(s), application number, status of application, and specific aspect of manuscript covered in the patent application.

It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant. Many universities require faculty members to disclose interests exceeding $10,000 or 5% equity in a company. As a practical guideline, consider: "Any undeclared competing financial interest that could embarrass you if it became publicly known after your work was published."

Diversified mutual funds or investment trusts do not constitute a competing financial interest.

Non-Financial Competing Interests

Non-financial competing interests can take different forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations and individuals. We encourage authors and reviewers to declare any unpaid roles or relationships that might have a bearing on the publication process. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Unpaid membership in a government or non-governmental organization
• Unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization
• Unpaid advisory position in a commercial organization
• Writing or consulting for an educational company
• Acting as an expert witness

Requirements for Authors

Authors must disclose and specify any competing interests during the submission process through the manuscript submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for providing a declaration on behalf of all authors.

Authors' competing interests declarations are disclosed to peer reviewers in full during the review process.

All authors are required to include a competing interests statement at the end of their published article using one of the following standard statements:

• "The authors declare the following competing interests: [details]"
• "The authors declare no competing interests."

We recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements. In such cases, instead of itemized disclosures, authors should state: "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing interests in this work."

Authors are not required to state the monetary value of their financial interests.

Requirements for Reviewers

RevisX asks peer reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests need not invalidate the conclusions of an article, they do not automatically disqualify an individual from evaluating it. We ask peer reviewers to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that might be perceived as relevant. Editors will consider these statements when weighing reviewers' recommendations.

Requirements for Editors

All RevisX editorial staff are required to declare to their employer any interests—financial or otherwise—that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices.

Requirements for External Editors and Editorial Board Members

External editors, guest editors, and editorial board members (if applicable) are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

They should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include—but is not limited to—having previously published with one or more of the authors, or sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.

If an editor, guest editor, or editorial board member is on the author list, they must declare this in the competing interests section of the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another editor will be assigned to oversee peer review. These submissions are subject to the same review process as any other manuscript.

Editorial Independence

RevisX maintains strict editorial independence. Editorial decisions and content are not compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any arrangements with advertisers or sponsors.

Editors, authors, and reviewers must keep all details of the editorial and peer review process confidential for submitted manuscripts.

Peer Review Confidentiality

Unless declared as part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously. Reviewer identities are not released.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while reviewing a manuscript, the reviewer must first consult with the editor. The reviewer must ensure confidentiality is maintained and provide the names of any colleagues consulted to the journal with the final report.

Publication of Review Materials

Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, the following materials must not be published, disclosed, or made public without prior written consent:

• Correspondence with the journal
• Reviewer reports
• Other confidential materials related to the submission

Reviewer Anonymity

Reviewers should be aware that RevisX keeps their names confidential and makes every effort to ensure this confidentiality. However, we cannot guarantee confidentiality if there is a successful legal action to disclose reviewer identity.

Research Misconduct

RevisX reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, other journals, and the authors' institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.

RevisX is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published record. We will issue corrections, retractions, and other post-publication updates on published content when necessary. All updates are clearly marked on the article and linked to the original publication.

Types of Post-Publication Updates

How Corrections Are Made

In most cases, the original article (both PDF and HTML versions) is corrected and linked to the published correction notice, which details the original error. For transparency, when changes affect data in figures, tables, or text (for example, when data points change or curves require redrawing), the correction notice will show the original data. All corrections and updates are clearly marked on the article page.

Removal of Published Content

In exceptional circumstances, RevisX reserves the right to remove content from its online platform. Such action may be taken when:

• RevisX has been advised that content is defamatory, infringes a third party's intellectual property rights, violates privacy rights, or is otherwise unlawful
• A court or government order has been issued or is likely to be issued requiring removal of the content
• The content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health

Removal may be temporary or permanent. Basic information (such as title and authors) will be retained along with a statement explaining why the content has been removed.

Post-Publication Comments

RevisX welcomes post-publication discussion and commentary on published research. Readers who wish to submit formal comments or concerns about published articles should contact the editorial office.

Addressing Concerns About Published Articles

RevisX is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record and will thoroughly investigate concerns raised by authors and readers. Authors are always given an opportunity to respond to concerns raised. We may request original unprocessed data and consult with experts during an investigation.

Depending on the seriousness of the issues, the following outcomes may occur:

• If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author
• If the article has already been published, depending on the nature and severity of the issues:
  • A correction or addendum may be issued
  • An Editorial Expression of Concern may be issued (typically followed by a second notification once the investigation concludes)
  • The article may be retracted
• The author's institution may be informed if we identify potentially serious issues

We aim for transparent notification to readers. Our primary goal is to ensure the integrity of the published record. We will issue Editorial Expressions of Concern to alert readers when we become aware of concerns with published material. While we are committed to addressing post-publication issues and correcting the record promptly, investigations typically take time to reach resolution given the complexity of the discussions and the need to obtain original data and consult with experts.

RevisX is committed to maintaining the integrity of published images. Digital images submitted with a manuscript should be minimally processed. A certain degree of image processing is acceptable for publication (and for some experiments is unavoidable), but the final image must correctly represent the original data and follow community standards.

General Guidelines for Image Processing

The following guidelines help ensure accurate presentation of image data. Authors must also take care to avoid misrepresentation during data acquisition.

Unprocessed Data Requirements

Editors may request unprocessed data files to help evaluate manuscripts during peer review. If these data are unavailable upon request, we may need to pause the peer review process until the issues are resolved. We may also request unprocessed data when addressing concerns about published papers.

We strongly recommend that authors retain unprocessed data and metadata files after publication, ideally archiving data permanently.

For manuscripts containing gels and Western blots, authors must submit unprocessed original images with the final accepted version. These unprocessed images will be published in the Supplementary Information.

Editors may screen images for manipulation during the review process.

Documentation Requirements

In the Methods section of your manuscript, please:

• List all image acquisition tools and image processing software packages used
• Document key image-gathering settings and processing manipulations
• Describe any adjustments made to images

Specific Guidelines for Gels and Blots

• Quantitative comparisons between samples on different gels or blots are strongly discouraged. If unavoidable, the figure legend must state that the samples come from the same experiment or parallel experiments and that gels or blots were processed in parallel.
• Re-arranged lanes that are non-adjacent in the gel must be clearly indicated in a way that shows the boundary between the lanes. Re-arrangement of lanes must be stated in the figure legend.
• Loading controls (such as GAPDH or actin) must be run on the same blot. When sample processing controls are run on different gels, they must be identified as such in the figure legend.
• Cropped gels in the paper must retain all important bands.
• High-contrast gels and blots are discouraged, as overexposure may hide additional bands.

Before submission, authors should: (1) check figures for duplications, (2) check blots and gels for splicing of lanes, (3) indicate whether panels are sample processing or loading controls, (4) ensure that unprocessed scans match the figures.

Specific Guidelines for Microscopy Images

• Adjustments should be applied to the entire image. Avoid threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges, and altering of high signals.
• If "pseudo-coloring" and nonlinear adjustment (such as "gamma changes") are used, this must be disclosed in the figure legend.
• Adjustments of individual color channels are sometimes necessary on "merged" images, but this should be noted in the figure legend.
• Do not group cells from multiple fields into a single field without clearly indicating this.

Additional Information for Microscopy (Encouraged)

We encourage authors to include the following information in the Methods section:

• Type of equipment used (microscopes, objective lenses, cameras, detectors, filter models)
• Acquisition software used
• Equipment settings for critical measurements
• Processing software and any manipulations (such as type of deconvolution, three-dimensional reconstructions, filtering, thresholding, and projection)
• The measured resolution at which an image was acquired and any processing that enhances the resolution

We also encourage authors to deposit raw image files with relevant metadata, including:

• Acquisition information (time and space resolution data, pixel dimensions, image bit depth)
• Experimental conditions (such as temperature and imaging medium)
• Fluorochromes (excitation and emission wavelengths, filters used)
• Display lookup table (LUT) information, especially when pseudocolor is used

RevisX employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality and integrity of published research. Here's what to expect:

Review Stages

• Editorial screening (3–5 days): The Editor-in-Chief or a Senior Editor assesses whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and meets basic quality standards.
• Peer review (4–6 weeks): If the manuscript passes initial screening, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
• Editorial decision (1–2 weeks after reviews received): The editor evaluates reviewer comments and makes a decision.

Possible Outcomes

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted without further changes.
• Minor revision: Small changes are required; typically reviewed by the editor only.
• Major revision: Substantial revisions needed; manuscript returns to reviewers after revision.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in RevisX.

Authors will receive detailed reviewer comments along with the editorial decision. Transparency and constructive feedback are central to our review process.

What Is Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text, or results. Plagiarism includes theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work.

Plagiarism has clearly occurred when large portions of text have been copied without appropriate and clear attribution. Such manuscripts will not be considered for publication in RevisX.

Text Recycling and Self-Plagiarism

Beyond wholesale copying of text, authors must take care to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarizing the work of others. "Text recycling" or reuse of parts of text from an author's own previous publications is a form of self-plagiarism. When reusing text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader.

What Is Duplicate Publication?

Duplicate (or redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple journals to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper.

How RevisX Handles Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

RevisX editors assess all cases of plagiarism and duplicate publication on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident after publication, we may correct, retract, or otherwise amend the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, its context within the published article, and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study.

Proper Attribution of Others' Work

Original Submission Requirement

Material submitted to RevisX must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere.

Disclosing Related Manuscripts

Authors submitting a manuscript to RevisX who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission and draw the editors' attention to it in their cover letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their manuscript is under consideration by RevisX—for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere after the original RevisX submission.

If part of a manuscript that an author wishes to submit to RevisX has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the cover letter. RevisX may consider the submission if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors (for example, if the other work is published in a language other than English).

What RevisX Allows

When in Doubt

In case of any doubt about whether material qualifies as plagiarism or duplicate publication, authors should seek advice from the editor handling their submission.

Guidelines for Media Contact

Authors should avoid seeking media attention for manuscripts they have submitted to RevisX before acceptance. Once a manuscript has been accepted and a publication date is set, authors may engage with media outlets during the week leading up to publication, provided they follow our embargo guidelines.

How RevisX Works with Journalists

RevisX prepares press materials highlighting notable upcoming publications and shares them with a list of registered journalists. About one week before publication, journalists gain password-protected access to:

• Full manuscript texts
• Supporting materials and images
• Any accompanying commentary or editorial content

All materials remain under embargo until the specific date and time indicated in the press materials.

For particularly significant research findings, our editorial and communications teams prepare brief summaries for journalists. During this pre-publication period, authors may be contacted by reporters. We encourage authors to engage with these inquiries to help ensure accurate and well-informed coverage of their research.

Authors may also coordinate publicity efforts through their own institutions (such as university communications offices). However, all such activities must respect our embargo timing, and we recommend authors communicate with our press office to coordinate these efforts.

The Purpose of Our Embargo System

Our embargo approach benefits the entire research communication ecosystem—scientists, authors, journalists, and the general public. By controlling the timing of information release, we ensure:

• All media outlets have equal opportunity to cover the research
• Journalists can base their reporting on the complete, peer-reviewed manuscript
• Authors and their institutions can prepare for and benefit from coordinated media attention

The peer review process provides journalists with quality assurance for the research they cover. When information is released prematurely, journalists lose this assurance and cannot gather expert commentary from other researchers in the field to provide balanced coverage.

We may revoke press access for journalists who violate embargo agreements.

Sharing Research Within the Scientific Community

RevisX supports open dialogue among researchers and does not restrict scientific communication through:

• Posting manuscripts on established preprint servers or related discussion platforms
• Presenting findings at academic conferences and symposia
• Sharing work through collaborative online platforms, personal blogs, or research wikis

Sharing research through these channels—whether as conference presentations or preprint posts—does not count as prior publication. See our Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication policy for additional details on preprints.

Handling Media Interest in Preprints and Presentations

When journalists contact researchers about preprints or conference presentations, authors may:

• Explain the research and its significance
• Provide context for the findings
• Clarify technical aspects of the work

Such media interactions will not negatively impact how we handle manuscripts under submission. Authors should recognize, however, that early media coverage might limit additional press attention when the final peer-reviewed version is published.

When discussing preprints with reporters, authors should emphasize that:

• The work has not completed peer review
• The results are preliminary
• Conclusions may be revised based on peer review feedback

All details about the peer review process and editorial discussions must remain confidential.

The Value of Peer-Reviewed Publication for Public Communication

Having the final, peer-reviewed manuscript available when research enters public discussion enables journalists to provide accurate, well-informed coverage. This is why we discourage authors from actively seeking media coverage before the peer-reviewed version is published.

We also encourage journalists covering preprints to clearly state that the research is not yet peer-reviewed and that findings may change.

Contact Information

For questions about our media policies, please reach out to the RevisX press office via email.

Principles of Scholarly Freedom and Responsibility

Researchers should be free to pursue lines of inquiry and communicate knowledge and ideas without fear of repression or censorship. At the same time, they have the ethical obligation to uphold intellectual integrity and avoid preventable harms that may arise in the course of research or its communication.

Research should respect the dignity and rights of human research participants, individuals or groups connected with the research, and the communities in which research is carried out. Research should also respect the rights of non-human life, natural resources, and the environment.

Benefits and Harms of Research

Harms can arise directly from the conduct of research (for example, injury to human participants or unnecessary suffering of animals) or indirectly from publication (for example, stigmatization of vulnerable groups or misuse of information). Non-maleficence (minimizing harm) and beneficence (maximizing benefit) are fundamental principles in research ethics.

Advancing knowledge and understanding is a public good and a key benefit of research, even when the research does not have an obvious immediate application. However, considerations of harm can occasionally outweigh the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted.

Editors consider potential harms that might result from publication, may seek external guidance on such risks as part of the editorial process, and in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, may decline publication or correct, retract, remove, or otherwise amend already published content.

Animal Research

For manuscripts reporting experiments on live vertebrates or higher invertebrates, the corresponding author must confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must include a statement identifying the institutional or licensing committee approving the experiments, including any relevant details.

The following information must be included where relevant:

• Sex and other characteristics of animals that may influence results
• Details of housing and husbandry where they are likely to influence experimental results

We recommend following the ARRIVE 2.0 reporting guidelines when documenting animal studies. We also recommend consulting the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) for guidance on veterinary best practice.

The editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, the editor may contact the ethics committee for further information.

Manuscripts presenting studies that have employed anesthesia or euthanasia methods inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of veterinary best practice (such as chloral hydrate, ether, and chloroform) will not be considered. Decisions to not consider manuscripts presenting such methods are independent of the approving ethics committee and any previously published work.

Human Participants Research

General Requirements

Research involving human research participants must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must identify the ethics committee approving the research, including the name and reference number of the committee in submitted manuscripts. If the study has been granted exemption from requiring ethics approval, details of the committee granting exemption should be included in the manuscript. Manuscripts must also include a statement affirming that informed consent was obtained from all human research participants.

Consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. Documentary evidence of consent must be supplied if requested.

Clinical Trials

For clinical trial registration and reporting requirements, please refer to RevisX's Clinical Research policy.

Publishing Images from Human Research Participants

When publishing identifiable images from human research participants, authors must include a statement in the published paper affirming that they have obtained informed consent for publication of the images. All reasonable measures must be taken to protect patient anonymity. Black bars over the eyes are not acceptable means of anonymization. In certain cases, we may request evidence of informed consent from authors. Images without appropriate consent will be removed from publication.

Studies Involving Vulnerable Groups

For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups where there is the potential for coercion or where consent may not have been fully informed, extra care will be taken by the editor. The manuscript may be referred to ethics experts for further review.

Research on Human Populations

Categorization and Reporting

For studies involving humans categorized by race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political or other beliefs, age, disease, disability, socioeconomic status, or other socially constructed or socially relevant groupings, authors should:

• Explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations
• Define categories in as much detail as the study protocol allows
• Justify their choices of definitions and categories
• Explain whether (and if so, how) they controlled for confounding variables in their analyses

Respectful and Inclusive Language

All content submitted for publication must be respectful of the dignity and rights of individuals and human groups. Authors should use inclusive, respectful, non-stigmatizing language in their manuscripts. Authors should ensure that writing is free from stereotypes or cultural assumptions. Avoid using descriptors that refer to personal attributes unless they are relevant to the research. We recommend that authors writing in English follow the guidance on bias-free language provided by the American Psychological Association.

Researchers are asked to carefully consider the potential implications (including inadvertent consequences) of research on human groups, to be reflective of their authorial perspective if not part of the group under study, and to contextualize their findings to minimize potential misuse or risks of harm to the studied groups.

Editorial Standards

Regardless of content type and whether a research project was reviewed and approved by an ethics committee, editors reserve the right to request modifications to, and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract after publication):

• Content that is premised upon the assumption of inherent biological, social, or cultural superiority or inferiority of one human group over another
• Content that undermines or could reasonably be perceived to undermine the rights and dignities of an individual or human group
• Content that includes text or images that directly or indirectly disparage a person or group
• Submissions that embody singular, privileged perspectives that are exclusionary of diverse voices and that present such perspectives as generalizable

Race, Ethnicity and Racism

Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs. Humans do not have biological races based on modern biological criteria.

Studies that use the constructs of race or ethnicity should explicitly motivate their use. Race and ethnicity should not be used as proxies for other variables such as socioeconomic status or income. For studies involving data collected from human participants, researchers should explain:

• Who provided the classification terms (the participants, the researchers, or third parties)
• What the classification terms are
• How racial or ethnic identity was determined

This information should be provided in the Methods section of your manuscript.

Biomedical studies should not conflate genetic ancestry (a biological construct) and race or ethnicity (sociopolitical constructs). Although race and ethnicity are important constructs for studying disparities in health outcomes and healthcare, genetic ancestry is the appropriate construct for studying the biological causes of diseases or differences in treatment response. If race or ethnicity are used in the context of disease causes due to the unavailability of genetic ancestry data, this should be done with caution and clarification.

Racism is scientifically unfounded and ethically untenable. Editors reserve the right to request modifications to or refuse publication of racist content.