AI Use and Disclosure Policy

Authors may use AI tools for manuscript preparation and legitimate research activities, provided that such use complies with research integrity, confidentiality, data protection, and publication ethics requirements. AI use is classified into two categories: AI-assisted writing and manuscript preparation and AI use in research methodology.

1. AI-Assisted Writing and Manuscript Preparation

Authors may use AI tools for literature searches, language polishing, reference formatting, manuscript preparation, translation, and other writing-related assistance.

Minor language corrections, such as spelling and grammar improvements, and reference formatting do not require disclosure, provided that they do not substantially alter the content or meaning of the manuscript.

All substantive AI-assisted writing and content modifications must be disclosed, including AI-generated text, substantial editing, rewriting, restructuring, translation, and other forms of AI assistance that materially contribute to the manuscript's content.

Authors are not required to annotate every AI-assisted sentence or edit individually. Instead, disclosures must identify the AI tool and its version, describe the purpose and scope of its use, and explain the authors' role in reviewing and validating the AI-generated or AI-assisted content.

2. AI Use in Research Methodology

AI tools may be used as part of legitimate research activities, including data collection and processing, statistical analysis, data visualization, code generation or optimization, image analysis, experimental design, computational modeling, and interpretation of research findings.

All AI use that forms part of the research methodology must be disclosed in the Methods section, including the tools and versions used, their specific applications, relevant procedures, and validation methods. Authors must provide sufficient methodological details to support transparency, reproducibility, and independent assessment.

AI-generated outputs must not replace independent human verification of research data, methodology, evidence, or scientific conclusions. The fabrication or falsification of research data, manipulation of original scientific images to misrepresent findings, creation of misleading research evidence, and inclusion of fabricated references are strictly prohibited.

Authors should retain appropriate research records, data sources, relevant AI-use documentation, and the basis for their independent scientific judgments to support transparency, reproducibility, and research integrity.

3. Author Responsibility and Accountability

AI tools must not be listed as authors. Authors retain full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical compliance of the entire final manuscript, including any AI-generated or AI-assisted content.

Authors must independently review and verify AI-generated outputs, including factual accuracy, scientific validity, potential biases, appropriate attribution, and compliance with applicable research ethics and data protection requirements.

4. Transparency and Disclosure Requirements

AI use requiring disclosure must be reported at the time of initial submission and updated as necessary during manuscript revision.

AI-assisted writing: Disclose in the cover letter and in the Acknowledgments section or a separate AI Use Statement before the References.

Methodological AI use: Disclose in the cover letter and describe in the Methods section, including sufficient details of its applications, procedures, and validation. A corresponding AI Use Statement may also be included to summarize the use of AI tools.

Authors are not required to disclose minor language corrections or reference formatting that do not substantially alter the manuscript's content.

5. AI Use Disclosure Statement Templates

5.1. AI-Assisted Writing Disclosure

Declaration of Generative AI Use in Manuscript Preparation

"During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [AI tool name and version] for [specific purpose, such as substantive text editing, rewriting, restructuring, or translation]. The authors have reviewed and verified the AI-generated or AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, and ethical compliance of the final manuscript."

5.2. Methodological AI Use Disclosure

Declaration of AI Use in Research Methodology

"In conducting this research, the authors used [AI tool name and version] for [specific research application, such as data analysis, image analysis, computational modeling, or code generation]. The AI tool was applied to [brief description of data, procedures, or research tasks], and its outputs were validated through [description of human oversight, verification procedures, or validation methods]. The authors take full responsibility for the scientific validity, accuracy, integrity, and reproducibility of the reported research."

Detailed information regarding the AI-assisted research procedures, tool configurations, and validation methods must also be provided in the Methods section.

Where both categories of AI use apply, authors must provide the relevant disclosures for each category.

6. Consequences of Non-Disclosure

POLYMAS reserves the right to determine whether a submitted manuscript is suitable for publication. Transparent disclosure of AI use enables editors to make informed editorial decisions and helps maintain the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

Before Publication: If the disclosed use of AI does not comply with the journal's policies, authors will be informed of the appropriate next steps, which may include requests for manuscript revision. Failure to disclose the use of generative AI tools as required by the journal's policies may constitute grounds for manuscript rejection.

After Publication: The journal and its editorial team may take appropriate action in accordance with industry standards and guidelines, including those established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. Such actions may include issuing corrections or, in certain circumstances, retracting published articles to address misrepresentation or breaches of publication ethics, including undisclosed use of generative AI tools.

POLYMAS supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist peer review, provided that such use complies with research integrity, publication ethics, data security, confidentiality, and the independence of the peer review process.

AI tools may enhance the efficiency and quality of peer review but must not replace reviewers' professional expertise, independent academic judgment, or accountability.

This policy is based on five fundamental principles: confidentiality and data protection, independent academic judgment, controlled AI assistance, transparency and disclosure, and accountability and traceability. It applies to all peer review activities conducted for journals published by POLYMAS.

1. Confidentiality and Data Protection

1.1. Protection of Confidential Materials

Reviewers must strictly maintain the confidentiality of all materials received during peer review.

Without explicit authorization from the journal, reviewers must not upload, input, transmit, or otherwise disclose any unpublished manuscript or confidential peer review materials to publicly accessible or unauthorized third-party AI tools, including but not limited to:

• ·The full manuscript or any part thereof;
• ·Figures, tables, research data, and supplementary materials;
• ·Review reports, reviewer comments, and peer review correspondence;
• ·Non-public identities of authors, reviewers, or other individuals involved in the review process;
• ·Unpublished research methods, experimental results, scientific conclusions, and other confidential information contained in the manuscript.

These restrictions also apply to summaries, excerpts, paraphrased text, and other derivative content that may reveal confidential or unpublished research information.

1.2. Data Security Requirements for AI Tools

Reviewers must understand and comply with the data retention, model training, third-party sharing, and privacy protection policies of any AI tools they use.

Confidential materials must not be submitted to unauthorized AI systems that may retain, reuse, share, or process such content for model training or other purposes.

The use of enterprise-level, institutionally deployed, or locally hosted AI tools does not automatically establish compliance with the journal's confidentiality requirements. Any AI use involving confidential manuscript content requires prior explicit authorization from the journal and must comply with applicable data protection and information security requirements.

1.3. Confidentiality Obligations

Unauthorized disclosure of manuscript content may violate authors' confidentiality rights, intellectual property rights, or personal information rights and constitutes a breach of peer review confidentiality.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the completion of the review process.

2. Permitted Uses of AI in Peer Review

POLYMAS permits the reasonable use of AI tools for the following purposes, provided that no confidential manuscript information is disclosed and reviewers' independent academic judgment is preserved.

2.1. Language and Formatting Assistance

Permitted uses include:

• ·Checking spelling, grammar, and language clarity in reviewer-written comments that contain no confidential information;
• ·Improving the clarity, tone, and organization of review reports;
• ·Assisting with the formatting and structure of reviewer comments.

AI tools must not generate substantive scientific evaluations or peer review assessments on behalf of reviewers.

2.2. General Academic Information Retrieval

Permitted uses include:

• ·Searching publicly available scholarly literature;
• ·Consulting general research methodologies, statistical principles, and academic reporting standards;
• ·Verifying bibliographic information from publicly available sources;
• ·Consulting relevant reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT and PRISMA.

Such activities must not involve submitting unpublished manuscript content to unauthorized AI tools.

Reviewers must independently verify any references, factual information, or supporting materials provided by AI tools and must not rely on unverified AI-generated outputs.

2.3. Journal-Authorized AI Review Assistance Tools

POLYMAS supports the development of a secure, controlled, and traceable AI-assisted peer review environment, subject to appropriate safeguards.

AI systems formally approved by the journal and incorporated into controlled review workflows may provide assistance with:

• ·Manuscript summarization and structured information extraction;
• ·Assessment of reporting completeness and methodological consistency;
• ·Identification of potential statistical risks and methodological concerns;
• ·Reference verification and retrieval of related published research;
• ·Identification of missing information, inconsistencies, or potential issues in manuscripts;
• ·Generation of review checklists and prompts for further examination.

Such use is permitted only when the following conditions are met:

• ·The AI system has been formally authorized by the journal and undergone appropriate data security assessments.
• ·Appropriate access controls, confidentiality protections, and privacy safeguards are implemented.
• ·Confidential manuscript content is not used for unauthorized model training, sharing, or other purposes.
• ·AI-assisted activities are appropriately documented and traceable.
• ·AI outputs are used solely as supporting information, independently verified by reviewers, and never substituted for professional academic judgment.

Without explicit journal authorization, reviewers must not independently use third-party AI tools to summarize, analyze, assess, or otherwise process unpublished manuscripts or confidential manuscript information.

3. Independent Academic Judgment and Prohibited Uses

3.1. Independent Academic Judgment

Peer review is an independent scholarly evaluation conducted by reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise.

Reviewers must personally undertake the core components of peer review, including:

• ·Assessing the research question and scientific significance;
• ·Evaluating the appropriateness of the study design and methodology;
• ·Assessing the reliability of data analysis and research findings;
• ·Evaluating originality, novelty, and scholarly contribution;
• ·Assessing the consistency between research evidence and conclusions;
• ·Formulating substantive revision recommendations and final review recommendations.

AI tools may provide supporting information or identify potential concerns but must not replace reviewers' professional analysis, independent evaluation, or judgment.

3.2. Prohibited Uses

Reviewers must not:

• ·Upload unpublished manuscripts or confidential peer review information to publicly accessible or unauthorized AI tools;
• ·Use AI tools to generate complete substantive peer review reports on their behalf;
• ·Present AI-generated scientific evaluations as their own independent assessments;
• ·Delegate recommendations regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection to AI systems;
• ·Adopt AI-generated statistical analyses, references, or scientific judgments without independent verification;
• · Use AI tools to fabricate review comments, evaluation evidence, or other peer review materials;
• ·Engage in any other AI-related activities that compromise the fairness, confidentiality, independence, or integrity of peer review.

AI-generated alerts or indications of potential problems must not, by themselves, constitute sufficient grounds for recommending manuscript rejection.

4. Transparency and Disclosure of AI Use

Reviewers must disclose relevant AI use in their review reports according to the nature and extent of such use.

4.1. Uses Not Requiring Disclosure

The following uses do not require disclosure, provided that no confidential manuscript information is involved and the substantive content of the review is not altered:

• ·Basic spelling and grammar corrections.
• ·Minor formatting adjustments that do not materially change the reviewer's comments.

4.2. Uses Requiring Disclosure

Reviewers must disclose AI assistance involving:

• ·Substantive language editing, restructuring, or translation of reviewer comments;
• ·AI-assisted organization or development of the review report;
• ·AI-assisted literature searches, methodological inquiries, or reference verification where the results materially inform the review;
• ·Use of journal-authorized AI systems for methodological checks, statistical risk identification, or identification of potential research concerns;
• ·Any other AI assistance that materially influences the content of the review report or the peer review process.

4.3. Disclosure Requirements

AI-use disclosures should include:

• ·The name and version of the AI tool used;
• ·The specific purpose and scope of its use;
• ·Whether a journal-authorized, controlled AI review assistance system was used;
• ·How the reviewer independently verified the AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs.

For complex or substantial AI-assisted review activities, the Editorial Office may request additional information regarding the procedures used and the validation performed.

Reviewers are not required to identify every AI-assisted sentence or individual edit. However, all AI use subject to disclosure under this policy must be reported accurately and transparently.

5. Reviewer Accountability and Traceability

Reviewers remain fully responsible for all comments, assessments, and recommendations submitted in their review reports, including any content edited or organized with AI assistance.

The use of AI tools does not diminish reviewers' responsibilities for the accuracy, objectivity, independence, or confidentiality of their assessments.

Reviewers must appropriately verify AI outputs that may influence their assessments, paying particular attention to potential factual inaccuracies, fabricated references, methodological errors, biases, and omissions.

For journal-authorized AI review assistance systems, the journal should establish appropriate usage records, access management, and accountability mechanisms in accordance with applicable data protection, confidentiality, and security requirements.

Information generated by AI assistance systems must be treated solely as supporting material for reviewers and editors.

Reviewers remain responsible for their review reports, while handling editors remain responsible for the editorial decisions within their authority. Final manuscript acceptance decisions must not be made autonomously by AI systems.

6. AI Use Disclosure Statement Templates

6.1. AI-Assisted Language and Structural Editing of Review Reports

Declaration of Generative AI Use in Peer Review

"During the preparation of this review report, I used [AI tool name and version] for [specific purpose, such as language polishing, improving clarity, structural editing, or translation].

I have independently reviewed and verified all AI-assisted content and take full responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, independence, and confidentiality compliance of my final review report."

6.2. AI-Assisted Literature Search and Methodological Reference

Declaration of AI-Assisted Literature Search and Review Support

"During the peer review process, I used [AI tool name and version] for [specific purpose, such as searching publicly available literature, consulting general methodological information, or verifying research reporting guidelines].

These AI-assisted activities did not involve disclosing confidential manuscript content to unauthorized tools. I have independently verified the relevant AI-generated information and completed my review report based on my own professional expertise and academic judgment."

6.3. Use of Journal-Authorized AI Review Assistance Systems

Declaration of Authorized AI-Assisted Peer Review

"During the peer review process, I used [name and version of the journal-authorized AI system] for [specific purpose, such as methodological completeness checks, statistical risk alerts, reference verification, or identification of potential research concerns].

The AI system was used in accordance with the journal's data confidentiality and security requirements. I have independently verified the supporting information provided by the AI system and personally conducted all scientific evaluations and formulated my final review recommendations."

Where multiple categories of AI assistance are involved, reviewers must disclose the relevant uses separately or in a consolidated statement, as appropriate.

Use of a journal-authorized AI system does not exempt reviewers from their obligations of transparency, independent academic judgment, confidentiality, or accountability.

POLYMAS supports the responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to assist editorial work, provided that such use complies with publication ethics, manuscript confidentiality, data security, and editorial independence. AI tools may enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of editorial processes but must not replace editors' professional judgment, scholarly evaluation, or responsibility for editorial decisions.

This policy is based on five fundamental principles: confidentiality and data protection, controlled AI use, independent editorial judgment, transparent management, and accountability and traceability. It applies to manuscript screening, peer review management, editorial assessment, and pre-publication quality control across all journals published by POLYMAS.

1. Scope of AI Use and Management Requirements

1.1. Permitted Uses

Editors may use AI tools approved or formally authorized by the publisher to conduct technical screening, information verification, and other supporting editorial tasks, provided that applicable confidentiality, data protection, and information security requirements are met. Permitted uses include, but are not limited to:

• (1) Text similarity checks and screening for potential duplicate publication;
• (2) Verification of the authenticity and accuracy of references, including the identification of potentially fabricated or AI-generated citations;
• (3) Preliminary screening of research images for potential integrity issues or anomalies;
• (4) Checking manuscript formatting, reference styles, and compliance with journal submission requirements;
• (5) Assisting with assessments of compliance with research reporting guidelines and the completeness of required information;
• (6) Extracting, classifying, and organizing manuscript information to support editorial workflows.

AI-generated screening results, risk alerts, and supporting analyses must be treated solely as reference information for editorial assessment. Such outputs must not be used to establish findings of research misconduct without further investigation or serve as the sole basis for desk rejection, manuscript rejection, or other editorial decisions.

1.2. Confidentiality and Data Security Requirements

Without explicit authorization from the publisher or journal, editors must not upload unpublished manuscripts, peer review reports, non-public identities of authors or reviewers, or other confidential materials to publicly accessible or unauthorized third-party AI tools.

Any AI processing involving confidential manuscript information must be conducted using tools that have undergone appropriate security assessments and received formal authorization. The storage, access, transmission, and processing of such information must comply with applicable data protection, confidentiality, and information security requirements.

Manuscript content and peer review information must not be used for unauthorized model training, third-party sharing, or purposes unrelated to editorial work.

2. Independent Editorial Judgment and Non-Delegable Responsibilities

Editors must maintain independence in scholarly evaluation, publication ethics assessments, and editorial decision-making. Core editorial responsibilities and final decision-making authority must not be delegated to AI systems.

The following responsibilities must remain with human editors who have the appropriate expertise and authority:

• (1) Evaluating the scholarly value, originality, novelty, and academic contribution of manuscripts;
• (2) Assessing and making judgments on research integrity, publication ethics, and potential conflicts of interest;
• (3) Selecting reviewers, assessing their suitability, and organizing and overseeing the peer review process;
• (4) Evaluating peer review reports and exercising professional judgment in resolving conflicting assessments;
• (5) Making decisions regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, rejection, and other editorial outcomes;
• (6) Reviewing and handling allegations of research misconduct, appeals, complaints, corrections, retractions, and other publication ethics matters.

AI tools may assist in identifying potential concerns, retrieving relevant information, or generating risk alerts. However, editors must independently verify AI-generated outputs and exercise professional judgment based on original materials, peer review reports, and applicable publication ethics standards.

No AI system may autonomously perform scholarly evaluations, make determinations on publication ethics matters, or issue final editorial decisions.

3. Transparent Management and Traceability

When editors use AI tools to assist with manuscript handling or publication quality control, appropriate records should be maintained according to the nature and risk level of the AI-assisted activities to ensure that their use is verifiable and traceable.

Such records should generally include:

• (1) The name and version of the AI tool used;
• (2) The specific purpose and scope of its use;
• (3) The principal findings, outputs, or risk alerts generated by the AI tool;
• (4) The editor's independent verification of the AI-generated results and any subsequent actions taken.

Where AI-assisted outputs may influence manuscript assessment, research integrity investigations, or editorial decisions, relevant supporting evidence and records of human evaluation and judgment should be retained.

All records must be securely maintained in accordance with the publisher's data protection, confidentiality, and records management requirements and made accessible only to authorized personnel.

The use of AI-assisted tools does not diminish, transfer, or otherwise relieve editors or the publisher of their professional responsibilities, publication ethics obligations, or management accountability.

Research images and data constitute essential evidence supporting scientific findings and safeguarding research integrity. To preserve the authenticity, accuracy, and integrity of the scholarly record and prevent the misuse of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools in ways that may distort or misrepresent research evidence, POLYMAS establishes the following requirements governing the use of AI in image generation, image processing, and data analysis in submitted manuscripts.

6.1. General Prohibitions

As a general rule, the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to generate, modify, or manipulate scientific images representing research data, experimental results, or observed phenomena is prohibited. Such images include, but are not limited to, microscopy images, gel and blot images, clinical and diagnostic images, experimental photographs, and other original scientific images.

The use of such tools to adjust brightness, contrast, color balance, or other image properties, or to perform operations that may alter, obscure, add, remove, or misrepresent information in original images, is not permitted unless supported by a scientifically justified methodology and appropriately disclosed in accordance with established research standards.

The use of AI to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent research data, original images, experimental findings, statistical figures, clinical diagnostic images, or any other materials presented as scientific evidence is strictly prohibited.

Any AI-assisted processing must preserve the authenticity, integrity, and verifiability of scientific data and images.

6.2. Exceptions for AI Use as Part of Research Methodology

Where AI technologies constitute an integral component of the research methodology, such as AI-assisted medical imaging, image segmentation and reconstruction, data preprocessing, computational analysis, statistical modeling, or other scientifically validated research techniques, their use may be permitted, provided that it complies with applicable research ethics, research integrity standards, and journal requirements.

Authors must provide a comprehensive description of the AI applications in the Materials and Methods or Methods section of the manuscript, including the name and version of the AI tool or model, its intended purpose, processing procedures, key parameters, and validation methods.

Sufficient methodological information must be provided to enable verification of the research findings and reproducibility of the relevant procedures.

AI-assisted processing must have a clearly established scientific rationale and must not be used to generate misleading findings or distort research evidence through inappropriate image or data manipulation.

6.3. Transparency, Disclosure, and Availability of Original Materials

Any use of AI to generate, process, analyze, or modify scientific images or research data must be accurately disclosed in accordance with the journal's AI Use and Disclosure Policy.

The disclosure must specify the name and version of the AI tool or model, its intended purpose, the materials or data processed, the principal procedures performed, and relevant parameter settings and human verification methods.

Authors must retain original research data, unprocessed original images, relevant materials generated before and after AI-assisted processing, and necessary records of the procedures performed to ensure the traceability of research processes and the verifiability of research findings.

Where necessary, the Editorial Office may request original data, unprocessed images, before-and-after comparisons of AI-processed materials, model configurations, or other relevant research records for research integrity assessment or technical verification.

Authors bear full responsibility for the authenticity, accuracy, completeness, and compliance of all submitted materials.

6.4. Exceptions for Illustrative and Conceptual Images

Generative AI tools may be used to assist in creating conceptual diagrams, research framework illustrations, educational figures, workflow diagrams, graphical abstracts, and other explanatory images, provided that such use does not involve the generation or modification of research evidence.

These images may be used solely to illustrate research backgrounds, concepts, theoretical frameworks, or research processes.

AI-generated illustrative images must not be presented as substitutes for experimental results, clinical observations, observed data, or other scientific evidence.

Authors must clearly disclose the use of AI tools in the relevant figure legends, including the tool name and version and the specific purpose of its use. Authors must also ensure that the generated content is accurate, appropriate, and free from fabricated information that may mislead readers.

AI-generated illustrative images must comply with applicable copyright requirements, permissions for the use of third-party materials, privacy protection obligations, and publication ethics standards.

6.5. Policy Violations and Editorial Decisions

6.5.1. Identification and Investigation of Potential Violations

If potential violations of this policy are identified during manuscript screening, peer review, or post-publication assessment, the Editorial Office reserves the right to initiate further investigation.

Potential violations include, but are not limited to, undisclosed AI use, unauthorized image generation or modification, fabrication or falsification of research data, presentation of misleading research evidence, and failure to provide an adequate explanation of AI-assisted processing procedures.

During the investigation, the Editorial Office may request original research data, unprocessed images, AI usage records, relevant processing parameters, and other supporting materials. Independent experts or research integrity advisers may also be consulted where necessary.

Alerts, anomaly indicators, or risk scores generated by AI detection tools must not serve as the sole basis for determining research misconduct or making adverse editorial decisions. Such findings must undergo appropriate human verification.

6.5.2. Measures Before Publication

For manuscripts that have not yet been published, the Editorial Office may take appropriate action based on the nature and severity of the identified issues and their potential impact on the reliability of the research findings.

Such measures may include:

• (1) Requesting additional AI-use disclosures, original research data, or supporting documentation;
• (2) Requiring authors to explain the relevant image or data processing procedures and, where necessary, revise, replace, or remove non-compliant content;
• (3) Suspending manuscript processing or peer review until the relevant concerns have been adequately investigated;
• (4) Rejecting manuscripts that involve serious violations of this policy, including fabrication or falsification of research data or images, or cases in which the authenticity of research evidence cannot be sufficiently verified;
• (5) Referring serious research integrity concerns to the authors' institutions or other appropriate bodies for further investigation, in accordance with applicable publication ethics standards and procedures.

Failure to disclose AI use as required by the journal's policies may constitute grounds for requesting clarification, requiring manuscript revision, or rejecting the submission. However, the seriousness of such non-disclosure must be assessed in light of the nature of the AI use, its actual impact, and the explanations and evidence provided by the authors.

6.5.3. Measures After Publication

If undisclosed or inappropriate AI use, unreliable research images or data, or other issues potentially affecting the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record are identified after publication, the journal will conduct an assessment in accordance with relevant guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and other applicable publication ethics standards.

Depending on the findings and severity of the concerns, the journal may take the following measures:

• (1) Correction: Publish a correction to address errors, omissions, or incomplete disclosures that do not compromise the reliability of the principal research findings or conclusions;
• (2) Expression of Concern: Issue an Expression of Concern when serious research integrity concerns remain unresolved, an investigation is ongoing, or the available evidence is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion but readers should be alerted to potential problems;
• (3) Retraction: Retract a published article, following applicable publication ethics procedures, when sufficient evidence demonstrates that research data, images, or conclusions are materially unreliable due to fabrication, falsification, or other serious issues that undermine the validity of the research findings or conclusions;
• (4) Notification of Relevant Institutions: Where serious research misconduct is suspected, contact the authors' institutions or other relevant responsible bodies, as appropriate, to facilitate further investigation in accordance with applicable procedures.

6.5.4. Editorial Decision-Making and Procedural Fairness

All editorial decisions concerning potential violations of this policy must be made by human editors with appropriate authority, based on factual evidence, journal policies, and applicable publication ethics standards.

Such decisions must not rely solely on AI-generated detection results or be made autonomously by AI systems.

Before making a significant adverse editorial decision, the Editorial Office should, as a general rule, inform the authors of the relevant concerns and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond, clarify the circumstances, and submit supporting evidence. This does not prevent the journal from taking appropriate interim measures when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

Editorial decisions must follow the principles of fairness, transparency, proportionality, and consistency, taking into account the nature and severity of the violation, its actual impact on the reliability of the research, and the explanations and supporting evidence provided by the authors.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit an appeal in accordance with the journal's Appeals and Complaints Policy.

The journal reserves the right to make final editorial decisions regarding manuscript handling, acceptance, and appropriate corrective actions for published articles in accordance with this policy and applicable publication ethics standards.

All measures taken under this policy are intended to uphold research integrity, safeguard the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of authors and readers.

Authors remain fully responsible for the authenticity, accuracy, completeness, and compliance of all scientific images and research data submitted for publication. Neither the use of AI tools nor the disclosure of such use relieves authors of their responsibilities under research integrity and publication ethics standards.