Editorial Policies

Table of Contents

Overview
Editorial Independence
Communicate with Respect
Ethics and Consent
Research Involving Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells
Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER)
Research Involving Animals
Dual Use Research of Concern
Standards for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consent for Publication
Trial Registration
Availability of Data and Materials
Standards of Reporting
Describing New Taxa
Competing Interests
Authorship
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Citations
Preprint Sharing and Citation
Duplicate Publication
Communication of Findings Before Publication
Text Recycling
Peer Review
Confidentiality
Misconduct
Corrections and Retractions
Appeals and Complaints
Collections and Special Issues

Overview

Gleam Publishing endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion in Editorial Decisions. Additionally, Gleam Publishing supports the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.

Submission of a manuscript to a Gleam Publishing journal implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies. Gleam Publishing maintains a neutral stance concerning jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions for the Journal of Clinical Question are made with strict independence. The journal benefits from the academic contributions of editors and scholars affiliated with institutions worldwide and is published by Gleam Publishing. These affiliations and the publisher have no influence over editorial decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief holds full and final authority over all editorial content, including the selection, evaluation, and timing of published manuscripts. To ensure the integrity of the scholarly record, editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality and clinical relevance of the work.

Commercial interests, sponsorship, or the organizational affiliations of the publisher do not play a role in the acceptance or rejection of any submission.

Communicate with Respect

At Gleam Publishing, we believe that building trust and delivering high-quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve can only be achieved through relationships founded on mutual respect. Our staff are expected to engage professionally and respectfully with authors, reviewers, and readers. We expect the same standards of behavior from the academic community and the public in their interactions with our staff. We do not tolerate aggressive behavior, harassment, bullying, or discrimination directed against Gleam Publishing staff. We reserve the right to report severe cases to employers or local authorities if necessary. Additionally, we may refuse to interact or conduct business with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy.

Ethics and Consent

Ethics Approval

Researchers working with human or animal subjects, whether living or deceased, are expected to uphold the highest standards of dignity, respect, and integrity. Ethical research practices demand minimizing harm and risk while ensuring full transparency so that editors, peer reviewers, and readers can properly assess the work. For interdisciplinary or mixed-method studies, researchers should determine which ethical guidelines apply based on the methodologies used.

Research Involving Humans

All studies involving human participants, samples, or personal data must comply with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Approval: Obtain required IRB or ethics committee approval before starting the research and report the committee name and reference number. If approval is exempted or not required, explain the basis and identify the determining committee or authority, where applicable. When in doubt, researchers should consult their institution before proceeding. Inclusive Reporting: When describing populations by characteristics such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, researchers should use non-stigmatizing language and explain how categories were defined, particularly when required by funding agencies. Accountability: Authors must be ready to provide ethics-related documentation upon request from the journal.

Prospective Studies and Clinical Trials

Informed Consent: Human research must follow the informed-consent requirements below, including documentation of any ethics committee-approved waiver or alternative consent procedure.

Trial Registration: Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry at or before the time of first participant consent for enrollment. The trial registration number and registration date must be reported in the manuscript. See the Trial Registration Policy for details.

Clinical Case Reports and Case Series

A case report presents a detailed account of an individual patient, while a case series involves multiple similar cases. Since these often contain potentially identifying details, authors must obtain explicit Consent to Publish from the patient or authorized representatives (e.g., guardians or next of kin). Even when direct identifiers are removed, consent is mandatory. Following the CARE guidelines is strongly recommended.

Organ and Tissue Transplantation Studies

Studies involving organ or tissue donation must follow the ethical standards set by the WHO and the World Medical Association (WMA). Manuscripts must specify the source of donor material and confirm that informed consent was obtained voluntarily, without coercion or incentives. For minors, vulnerable individuals, or deceased donors, consent must come from guardians or next of kin. Authors should retain evidence of ethical approval and consent, ready to provide it if requested. Submissions may be rejected or retracted if authors cannot adequately demonstrate adherence to ethical standards.

Retrospective, Survey, and Observational Research

Retrospective Studies: Obtain required ethical approval or document an applicable exemption. An open data license does not itself establish an ethics exemption. Obtain any required data-access permissions and document informed consent or an approved waiver where applicable. Protect confidentiality and comply with applicable data-access conditions; permission from a dataset owner does not replace required ethics review or a consent waiver. Survey Studies: Participants must be fully informed about the purpose of the research, data storage procedures, and confidentiality protections. Voluntary consent must be obtained, and where ethics approval is waived, this must be clearly stated in the manuscript. Covert Observational Research: Allowed only in exceptional circumstances with compelling justification and full ethics committee approval. Researchers should disclose platform permissions when using data from social media and must declare any use of aliases or anonymized identities.

International Research and Ethics Dumping

When conducting research outside one's own country or region, special ethical considerations arise, especially when studies are carried out in areas with limited research governance. Obtain local ethics approval where research is conducted. Collaborate with local researchers, participants, and communities during design, analysis, and dissemination. Avoid ethics dumping, where weaker regulations are exploited to bypass international ethical standards. Include a statement explaining environmental and community impacts and justify why the location was essential to the research. Journals reserve the right to reject or retract manuscripts if ethical concerns cannot be resolved.

Research on Indigenous Communities

Research involving indigenous peoples often requires additional permissions from community leaders, elders, or cultural authorities. Authors must also respect cultural sensitivities, including restrictions on publishing images or personal information. Recommended ethical frameworks include:

AIATSIS Guidelines for Ethical Publishing

American Anthropological Association Guidelines

CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance

National Inuit Strategy on Research

Authors should consult community-specific guidance to ensure compliance.

Social Media and Digital Research

When using social media data or other online content, researchers must: Check platform terms of service and user policies to determine if permissions are needed. Obtain ethical approval where private information or direct interaction with users is involved. Ensure anonymization and secure informed consent if participants could be identified. Refer to ethical frameworks such as the British Sociological Association's guidelines and the Social Data Science Lab's recommendations.

Human Dignity and Sensitive Content

Vulnerable Populations: Follow international and institutional guidelines when working with children, marginalized groups, or those at risk. Images and Recordings: Obtain explicit consent before publishing identifiable images, videos, or recordings. Stigmatizing Language: Use neutral, respectful language when describing identity categories. Where offensive terms are included for scholarly purposes (e.g., in quotations), clarify their use. Content Warnings: Where studies contain graphic or sensitive material, provide appropriate warnings to prepare readers.

Privacy, Consent, and Identifiable Information

Consent for publication of identifiable personal information, images, or case details is governed by the journal's Consent for Publication Policy.

Informed Consent

For research involving human participants, informed consent must be obtained where required by applicable ethical standards and regulations. If informed consent has been waived by an institutional review board or ethics committee, the waiver and the responsible committee must be identified in the manuscript.

For articles reporting human transplantation studies, authors must declare that no organs or tissues were obtained from prisoners and identify the institutions from which organs or tissues were acquired. Documentary evidence of consent and ethical approval must be available upon request.

Research Involving Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells

Manuscripts reporting experiments involving human embryos, gametes, human embryonic stem cells, and related materials, as well as clinical applications of stem cells, must include confirmation that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations (see also Ethics and Consent).

The manuscript must include an ethics statement that identifies the institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the name of the committee) that approved the experiments, along with any relevant details. Authors must confirm that informed consent (see also Ethics and Consent and Consent for Publication) was obtained from all recipients and/or donors of cells or tissues, where applicable. They should also describe the conditions under which materials for research, such as human embryos or gametes, were donated. The editor may request copies of the approval and redacted consent documents.

We encourage authors to adhere to the principles outlined in the 2025 ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation.

The editors of the journal are responsible for determining whether to publish papers that describe modifications to the human germline. Their decisions are guided by safety considerations, compliance with applicable regulations, and the current status of societal debates regarding the implications of such modifications for future generations.

Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER)

We encourage our authors to adhere to the “Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – Guidelines” and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully to avoid confusion. Article titles and/or abstracts should clearly indicate the sex(es) relevant to the study. Additionally, authors should describe in the background whether sex and/or gender differences are expected; report how sex and/or gender were integrated into the study design; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, when appropriate; and discuss the corresponding results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, a rationale should be provided in the Discussion section. We recommend that our authors consult the full guidelines before submission.

Definition of sex and gender (sourced from the Office of Research on Women’s Health, NIH).
Sex refers to the biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, reproductive organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles.
Gender refers to the socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviors that exist within a historical and cultural context, varying across societies and over time.
Applications of the Guidelines: These guidelines apply to studies involving human subjects, vertebrate animals, and cell cultures.

Research Involving Animals

Experimental research involving vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee before starting the research where required; explain any exemption or why approval was not required. The International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has published ethical guidelines to support these standards.

A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g., the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number, where applicable) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be specified in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The editor will consider 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 that present studies employing anesthesia or euthanasia methods inconsistent with widely accepted norms of veterinary best practices (e.g., chloral hydrate, ether, and chloroform) will not be considered. The decision to exclude manuscripts utilizing such anesthesia or euthanasia methods is independent of the approving ethics committee and any previously published work. We recommend that authors consult the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) as a comprehensive resource for guidance on veterinary best practices regarding the anesthesia and euthanasia of animals.

For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must document informed consent from the client or owner and ensure adherence to a high standard of veterinary care, reflecting best practices.

Field studies and other non-experimental research involving animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Additionally, such research should receive approval from an appropriate ethics committee, where applicable. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or the necessary permissions or licenses must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors follow the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction, as well as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Dual Use Research of Concern

Some manuscripts contain information that could be misapplied, posing a significant threat to public health, safety, security, crops, and other plants and animals, as well as the environment. For such information to be published, the benefits to the research community, society, or public health must outweigh any associated risks. We reserve the right to seek expert advice in cases where concerns may arise, and we may require a manuscript to undergo peer review specifically to assess the dual-use risk. If the risk of misuse outweighs any potential benefits, publication will be declined; published content may be corrected, retracted, or removed.

Researchers are expected to comply with their institutional and funders’ requirements, as well as any applicable national regulations. They should be aware of dual-use concerns related to their work and take proactive measures to minimize the potential for misuse of their research. Such issues include, but are not limited to, biosecurity as well as nuclear and chemical threats. When relevant regulations exist, authors must disclose whether their study is classified as dual-use research of concern. If it is, the manuscript should include information about the authority granting approval and the reference number for the regulatory approval. Additionally, when the study involves materials that could be harmful outside the laboratory context, the manuscript should detail the appropriate containment procedures (e.g., biosafety measures).

We recognize the widespread view that openness in science helps to alert society about potential threats and to provide defenses against them. We anticipate that it will be exceedingly rare for the perceived risks to outweigh the benefits of publishing a paper that has otherwise been deemed suitable for publication.

Standards for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Gleam Publishing journals are committed to evidence-based research. We believe that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research should adhere to the same standards and evidence thresholds as conventional medical research.

We invite the submission of manuscripts that meet the following clinical research standards:

Clinical research manuscripts must comply with both international and national standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant official regulations, including ClinicalTrials.gov.
Studies must be adequately controlled—whether compared to a placebo or conventional medicine—blinded (where appropriate), randomized, and possess sufficient statistical power to confidently and accurately interpret the reported effects. Studies that report a CAM treatment/technique compared solely to another CAM treatment/technique are insufficient for testing the efficacy of the CAM treatment in question. Furthermore, studies in which conventional treatment is supplemented with a CAM technique are only valid if they are compared to the same traditional treatment supplemented with a placebo.
CAM Treatments/Techniques Tested on Animal Models and/or Human Patients: It is unethical for research involving humans or animals to proceed without adequate evidence demonstrating that the treatment/technique has potential therapeutic benefits. Manuscripts should present objective, measurable data derived from previously published peer-reviewed literature that adheres to scientific principles, such as in vitro or cellular studies. Other forms of evidence are not acceptable. Manuscripts that do not include this evidence will not be considered on ethical grounds.

Consent for Publication

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos related to a person, written informed consent for the publication of these materials must be obtained from that individual (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of minors under 18). The consent must permit the publication of their details under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, ensuring that the materials will be freely available online. If the person is deceased, consent for publication must be obtained from their next of kin. The manuscript must include a statement confirming that written informed consent for publication was obtained.

Human Research Participant Publication Approval Templates: English approval can be used to obtain consent from human research participants/patients when identifiable information and/or media may be involved. The consent form must clearly state that the details/images/videos will be publicly accessible online and may be viewed by the general public.

Outside Case Reports and Case Series, publication consent may not be required for entirely unidentifiable images where no identifiable individual details are reported. The final decision regarding the requirement for consent to publish rests with the editor.

Trial Registration

Clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry at or before the time of first participant consent for enrollment. The trial registration number and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.

Clinical trials must be registered prospectively. Registration must be publicly accessible in ClinicalTrials.gov or an appropriate primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, consistent with ICMJE recommendations. Ethics approval does not replace trial registration.

A clinical trial prospectively assigns human participants or groups to a health-related intervention to evaluate health outcomes. Authors who are uncertain whether their study requires registration should consult the ICMJE recommendations. Include the registration number and date at the end of the abstract, cite any published protocol, and explain relevant protocol changes.

Registration of Systematic Reviews

Prospective registration of systematic reviews, such as in PROSPERO, is strongly encouraged.

Where a systematic review has been registered, include the registration number and registry link in the manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials

All manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement describing whether and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed.

Authors are encouraged to share research data in recognized repositories where ethically, legally, and practically permissible. Restrictions arising from participant confidentiality, informed consent, data protection requirements, third-party agreements, or other legitimate considerations must be clearly described.

For data types for which public deposition is an established disciplinary requirement, such as nucleotide sequence data, deposition in an appropriate repository may be required.

Genomic and Sequence Repositories

Deposit nucleotide sequences and genome assemblies in appropriate repositories, such as those participating in the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), in accordance with applicable disciplinary requirements. Report accession numbers and provide relevant sequence reads and metadata where permitted. Use appropriate repositories for genomic and transcriptomic datasets and include annotations needed to interpret the data. Microarray data should follow applicable MIAME standards.

Human genomic data and linked phenotype information require safeguards appropriate to their sensitivity. Use controlled-access repositories where necessary and explain access conditions. Repository selection and disclosure must comply with consent, ethics approval, and applicable data-protection requirements.

Publication of Clinical Datasets

Protect participant privacy and assess direct and indirect identifiers before sharing clinical data. State whether consent permits the proposed sharing, or identify an approved waiver or other applicable basis. Consult the responsible ethics committee where needed. Consent for publication of identifiable personal information is governed by the Consent for Publication Policy.

Software and Code

Describe the availability of software and custom code supporting the results, including the version used, repository link, persistent identifier where available, license, and any restrictions. Authors are encouraged to archive code in a suitable repository, such as Zenodo. Explain how editors and reviewers can assess code where relevant, using access arrangements that respect confidentiality, applicable agreements, and legal requirements.

Availability of Research Materials

Describe how supporting research materials, such as strains, cell lines, reagents, and tools, may be obtained where ethically, legally, and practically feasible. Use established repositories where appropriate, provide accession numbers or persistent identifiers, and disclose access conditions, distribution costs, or third-party restrictions.

Data Availability Statement

The statement must identify relevant datasets, where they are held, and whether access is public, controlled, available on request, or unavailable. Explain any restrictions and any process for requesting permitted access. If no new data were generated or analyzed, state this explicitly. Do not promise access that cannot be provided.

For clinical trial data, describe whether de-identified participant data will be shared, which data and related documents are available, the timing and duration of availability, and access criteria and procedures. Refer to ICMJE data-sharing guidance.

Example statements, to be adapted to the actual circumstances:

The data supporting this study are available in [Repository] at [Persistent identifier or URL].
The data are not publicly available because [Reason]. Permitted access may be requested through [Procedure], subject to [Conditions].
No new data were generated or analyzed for this article.

Data Citation

Cite datasets directly in the reference list using the repository record and a persistent identifier, where available. Follow the journal’s reference instructions and provide sufficient information to identify the dataset and version used.

Post-Publication Access to Data

Authors should honor the access arrangements described in the published Data Availability Statement and inform the Editorial Office if these arrangements change.

Failure to provide data in accordance with the published Data Availability Statement may result in further editorial investigation and, where appropriate, corrective action.

Third-Party Data and Analysis

Disclose third-party data sources and any outsourced data generation or analysis in the Methods and Data Availability Statement. Explain licensing, contractual, or other access restrictions and any procedure through which others may request permitted access. The corresponding author remains responsible for the work reported. Requests for editorial or peer-review access must be handled consistently with ethical, legal, and data-use requirements.

Standards of Reporting

Gleam Publishing advocates for comprehensive and transparent reporting of biomedical and biological research. For this research, the checklist below must be completed before peer review and made available to the editors and reviewers.

Format and Checklist

Randomized Controlled Trials (CONSORT)

We strongly recommend that authors consult the minimum reporting guidelines for health research hosted by the EQUATOR Network when preparing their manuscripts. Additionally, authors should refer to FAIRsharing.org for relevant reporting checklists for biological and biomedical research.

Protocols for Randomized Controlled Trials (SPIRIT)
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses* (PRISMA) and Protocols (PRISMA-P)
Observational Studies (STROBE)
Case Reports (CARE)
Qualitative Research (COREQ)
Diagnostic/Prognostic Studies (STARD and TRIPOD)
Economic Evaluations (CHEERS)
Statistics Checklists for Editors and Reviewers to Use When Evaluating the Statistical Methods in Manuscripts:
Life Sciences Journals
Medical Journals
Statistics, Mathematics, and Computer Science Journals

In addition, journals may mandate adherence to other reporting guidelines, and the exact requirements can vary depending on the journal. Therefore, please refer to the journal’s submission guidelines.

*Authors of systematic reviews should also provide a link to an additional file from the “Methods” section, which reproduces all details of the search strategy. For an example of how a search strategy should be presented, see the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook.

Statistical Methods

Authors should provide comprehensive information regarding the statistical methods and measures employed in their research, including a justification for the appropriateness of the statistical tests used (see the SAMPL guidelines for more details). Reviewers will be asked to check the statistical methods, and the manuscript may be sent for specialist statistical review if deemed necessary.

Resource Identification

To enable adequate tracking of the critical resources used in producing the scientific findings reported in the biomedical literature, authors must provide a complete description of all resources, including sufficient information to allow for their unique identification. In support of the Resource Identification Initiative (RII), we encourage authors to use unique Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) within their manuscripts to identify their model organisms, antibodies, and tools.

Cell Line Authentication

If human cell lines are used, authors are strongly encouraged to include the following information in their manuscript:

The source of the cell line, including the date and location of its acquisition.
Whether the cell line has been recently authenticated and, if so, by what method.
Whether the cell line has been recently tested for mycoplasma contamination.

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

Gene Nomenclature

Standardized gene nomenclature should be consistently applied throughout. Human gene symbols and names can be found in the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) database. While alternative gene aliases that are commonly used may also be reported, they should not be used independently in place of the HGNC symbol. For other species, use the relevant organism’s approved gene nomenclature; see HGNC’s resource links.

Reporting Sequence Variants

We endorse the recommendations of the Human Variome Project Consortium for the description of sequence variants (Human Genome Variation Society) and phenotypes (Human Phenotype Ontology).

We recommend that authors submit all variants described in a manuscript to the relevant public gene/disease-specific database (LSDB); a list is available here. The database URL and the unique identifier should be included in the manuscript.

Data

To drive the maximum reuse and utility of published research, we expect authors to comply with available field-specific standards for data preparation and documentation. For information on these standards, please see the FAIRsharing website. Authors must comply with best practices in their respective fields for data sharing, with particular attention to maintaining patient confidentiality.

Authors using unpublished genomic data are expected to abide by the guidelines of the Fort Lauderdale and Toronto agreements. According to broadly accepted scientific community standards, a critical requirement for third parties wishing to use genomic data is to contact the owners of the unpublished data (i.e., the principal investigator and the sequencing center) before undertaking their research. This communication is essential to advise the data owners about the planned analyses.

Microscopy

Authors should be prepared to supply the journal with original data upon request, at the resolution at which it was collected, from which their images were generated. Cells from multiple fields should not be juxtaposed in a single field; instead, multiple supporting fields of cells should be presented as supplementary information.

Adjustments should be applied uniformly across the entire image. Threshold manipulation, as well as the expansion or contraction of signal ranges and alterations to high signals, should be avoided. This must be disclosed if “pseudo-coloring” and nonlinear adjustment (e.g., “gamma changes”) are used. While adjustments to individual color channels may be necessary for “merged” images, such modifications should be clearly noted in the figure legend.

In the Methods section, please specify the type of equipment (microscopes/objective lenses, cameras, detectors, filter models, and batch number) and the acquisition software used. Although we appreciate some variation between instruments, equipment settings for critical measurements should also be listed. In addition, the processing software should be named, and manipulations performed should be clearly indicated. These include the type of deconvolution, three-dimensional reconstructions, surface and volume rendering, “gamma changes,” filtering, thresholding, and projection techniques.

Authors should specify the measured resolution at which an image was acquired, as well as any downstream processing or averaging techniques employed to enhance the image’s resolution.

Describing New Taxa

Algal, Fungal, and Botanical Nomenclature

Since January 2012, the electronic publication of algal, fungal, and botanical names has been recognized as a valid form of publication. Manuscripts that introduce new taxon names or other nomenclatural acts must follow the guidelines set forth by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Authors describing new fungal taxa should register the names with a recognized repository, such as MycoBank, and request a unique digital identifier, which should be included in the published article.

Zoological Nomenclature

Since January 2012, the electronic publication of zoological names has been considered valid, provided that certain conditions are met. Manuscripts that introduce new taxon names or other nomenclatural acts must follow the guidelines established by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. We require the new taxon name and the published article to be registered with ZooBank. The unique identifier provided by ZooBank should be included in the published article.

Bacterial Nomenclature

According to the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), the influential publication of new prokaryotic names in electronic journals is possible. To comply with the rules of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) for valid publication >authors must submit a copy of the published article in its final form, along with certificates of deposition for the type strain (ensuring unrestricted distribution) in at least two internationally recognized, publicly accessible culture collections located in different countries. This submission should be directed to the editorial office of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM). Following a review by the list editor, names that are effectively published and conform to all ICNP rules will appear on a subsequent validation list in the order they were received, thereby becoming validly published.

Virus Nomenclature

The proposal of new virus names must follow the guidelines established by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) as outlined in the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature. Proposals for new virus taxa should be forwarded to the relevant Study Group of the ICTV for consideration.

Competing Interests

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial relationships or activities that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the submitted work.

All submitted manuscripts must include a Competing Interests statement. If there are no competing interests, state: “The authors declare that they have no competing interests.” Editors may request further information.

Editors and reviewers are required to disclose any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if such interests are identified.

What Constitutes a Competing Interest?

A competing interest exists when a relationship or activity may influence, or reasonably be perceived to influence, the interpretation or presentation of the work. Disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests.

Financial Competing Interests

Financial competing interests include, but are not limited to:

Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may financially benefit from or be adversely affected by the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.

Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may financially benefit from or be adversely affected by the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.

Holding or currently applying for patents related to the content of the manuscript.

Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents related to the content of the manuscript.

Non-Financial Competing Interests

Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual factors. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please get in touch with contact@gleampub.com.

Commercial Organizations

Authors affiliated with pharmaceutical companies or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials must declare these affiliations as competing interests upon submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies (GPP2022), which are designed to ensure that publications are produced responsibly and ethically. These guidelines also apply to companies or individuals involved in industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations, and communications firms. Gleam Publishing will not publish advertising content.

Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, and Editors

Editorial board members, guest editors, and editors are required to declare any competing interests. If a competing interest is identified, they may be excluded from the peer review process.

In addition, individuals should refrain from handling manuscripts in cases of competing interests. 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.

When an editor, guest editor, or editorial board member is included in 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, a different editor, guest editor, or member of the editorial board will be assigned to oversee the peer review process. These submissions will undergo the same review process as any other manuscript.

Editorial board members are welcome to submit papers to the journal. However, these submissions do not receive priority over other manuscripts, and editorial board member status does not influence editorial consideration.

Editorial Staff

All editorial staff at Gleam Publishing journals must disclose to their employer any financial or other interests that could influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so constitutes a disciplinary offense. Gleam Publishing upholds a strict policy of editorial independence in individual acceptance decisions, ensuring that the standards of quality and significance are never compromised.

Authorship

Authorship should be based on the four criteria recommended by the ICMJE. Authors must meet all four criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
Drafting the work or critically reviewing it for important intellectual content;
Final approval of the version to be published; and
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Gleam Publishing journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where research is conducted and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfill all authorship criteria described above. Contributors who do not meet all authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Please refer to the individual journal’s submission guidelines for information on the format for listing author contributions.

Authorship changes require reasons, written agreement from all listed authors and anyone added or removed, and editorial approval. Before acceptance, use the change of authorship form. After acceptance, submit equivalent information to the Editorial Office; changes are considered only to correct a justified error. Publication may be paused; author-list changes after publication require a correction. Unresolved disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions.

Corresponding Authors

Corresponding authors are responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission, including the names and order of authors. They must also ensure that all authors receive the submission and all substantive correspondence with the editors, as well as the total reviews. Additionally, corresponding authors must verify that all data, figures, materials (including reagents), and code—regardless of whether they were developed or provided by other authors—comply with the transparency and reproducibility standards of both the field and the journal.

This responsibility includes, but is not limited to: (i) ensuring that original data, figures, materials, or code upon which the submission is based are preserved following best practices in the field, making them retrievable for reanalysis; (ii) confirming that the presentation of data, figures, materials, or code accurately reflects the original; and (iii) foreseeing and minimizing obstacles to the sharing of data, materials, or code described in work. The corresponding author should manage these requirements across the author group and ensure that all authors are fully aware of and comply with best practices in the publication discipline.

To discourage ghost authorship, corresponding authors must disclose whether the manuscript benefited from editorial services that, if unacknowledged, could represent an undisclosed conflict of interest. Examples include using an editor from an organization that may have a vested interest in slanting the results or relying on a technical writer at a level that would warrant authorship credit. These situations can be addressed by including a statement in the acknowledgments, describing the contributions in the methods section, or adding an author.

The involvement of scientific (medical) writers, as well as any other individuals who assisted in the preparation of the manuscript, should be acknowledged, along with their sources of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers must be explicitly acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” or “Authors’ Contributions” section as appropriate.

Corresponding authors should indicate whether any authors from earlier versions have been removed or if new authors have been added, along with an explanation for these changes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors (or group/laboratory leaders in large collaborations) have certified the author list and contribution description. Additionally, the corresponding author must ensure that all individuals deserving credit for the manuscript are identified, that no individuals are listed who do not merit authorship credit, and that author contributions, when provided, are expressed accurately.

Any potential authorship disputes brought to the editors’ attention will be handled according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Acknowledgments

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an “Acknowledgments” section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include individuals who provided purely technical help or writing assistance or a department chair who provided only general support.

Third-Party Submissions

An author must submit all manuscripts; third-party submissions are not permitted.

Author Name Change

An author who has changed their name due to reasons such as gender transition or religious conversion may request that their name, pronouns, and other relevant biographical information be updated in papers published before the change. The author can choose for this correction to be made silently, meaning there will be no indication of the change on either the PDF or the HTML version of the paper, or they may opt for a formal public author correction.

For authors who have changed their names and wish to update their published works, please fill out the Name Change Contact Form and contact us.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

For Authors

Manuscript Preparation
Gleam Publishing recognizes that generative and AI-assisted technologies (“AI tools”), when used responsibly, can enhance research efficiency, accelerate insight development, and support high-quality scholarly outcomes. Authors submitting manuscripts to Gleam Publishing journals may employ AI Tools as aids during manuscript preparation. Such tools must not replace human judgment, scholarly expertise, or critical evaluation, and their use must remain under the author’s direct supervision and control.

Authors bear full responsibility for the content of their manuscripts, including the obligation to:
- a)Carefully review and verify the accuracy, completeness, objectivity, and reliability of any AI-generated content, including the validation of references, as AI-generated citations may be inaccurate or fabricated.
- b)Thoroughly edit, adapt, and integrate all AI-assisted material to ensure that the manuscript reflects the author’s original intellectual contribution, analysis, interpretation, and scholarly voice.
- c)Ensure transparency by clearly disclosing the use of AI Tools or other assistive technologies; a formal AI disclosure statement is required at the time of submission.
- d)Develop the manuscript in a manner that respects data protection, intellectual property, and related rights, including adherence to the terms and conditions of any AI Tools used.
Disclosure of AI Use
Authors must disclose the use of AI Tools for manuscript preparation in a separate AI declaration statement submitted with the manuscript. This statement will be published alongside the final article. The declaration should specify the name of the AI Tool used, the purpose of its use, and the extent of the author’s oversight and involvement.

Disclosure of AI use promotes transparency and trust among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and other contributors, and supports compliance with the terms of use of the relevant AI Tools. Routine use of software for basic grammar, spelling, or punctuation checks does not require disclosure. However, any use of AI Tools during the research process must be clearly declared and described in detail in the Methods section.
AI Authorship
AI tools and large language models do not qualify for authorship because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for the work.
Generative AI Images
The rapidly evolving area of generative AI image creation has given rise to novel legal copyright and research integrity challenges. As publishers, we are committed to strictly adhering to existing copyright laws and best practices regarding publication ethics. While legal matters related to AI-generated images and videos remain broadly unresolved, Gleam Publishing journals cannot permit their use for publication.

Exceptions to this policy include images or artwork obtained from agencies with which we have contractual relationships, provided that these images were created in a legally acceptable manner. Additionally, images and videos that are directly referenced in a piece specifically discussing AI will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

As we expect rapid developments in this field in the near future, we will conduct regular reviews of this policy and make necessary adaptations.

Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine, or enhance existing images or figures must be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to facilitate a case-by-case review.

For Reviewers and Editors

Peer reviewers provide expert evaluations that are invaluable and irreplaceable. Reviewers are solely accountable for the accuracy and the perspectives expressed in their reports. The peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust and strict confidentiality.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts or confidential manuscript information to external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured, unless such use has been explicitly authorized by the journal and the authors.

Disclosure and Oversight

Any permitted use of AI in manuscript evaluation must be disclosed to the journal. Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for their evaluations and decisions.

AI tools cannot be listed as co-reviewers.

Citations

Research articles and non-research articles (e.g., opinion pieces, reviews, and commentaries) must cite appropriate and relevant literature to support the claims made. Excessive self-citation, coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite, gratuitous and unnecessary citations of articles published in the journal to which the paper has been submitted, and any other form of citation manipulation are deemed inappropriate.

Citation manipulation will result in the rejection of the article and may be reported to the authors’ institutions. Similarly, any attempts by peer reviewers or editors to encourage such practices should be reported by authors to the publisher.

Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscripts:

Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors’ own new ideas, findings, or general knowledge) must include a citation.
Authors should avoid citing derivatives of original works. For example, they should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites the original source.
Authors should ensure that their citations are accurate (i.e., they must ensure the citation supports the statements made in their manuscript and does not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the authors’ intended point).
Authors should refrain from citing sources that they have not personally reviewed.
Authors should avoid preferentially citing their own publications, as well as those of their friends, peers, or institutions.
Authors should avoid citing works solely from a single country.
Authors should avoid using an excessive number of citations to support one point.
Ideally, authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review whenever possible.
Authors should refrain from citing advertisements or advertorial content.

Preprint Sharing and Citation

Gleam Publishing journals encourage authors to post preprints of their primary research manuscripts on preprint servers of their choice, as well as on their personal or institutional websites. The journal also promotes open communication among researchers, whether through community preprint servers or dedicated preprinting platforms.

Preprints are defined as an author’s version of a research manuscript that is submitted for formal peer review at a journal and deposited on a public server (as described in Preprints for the Life Sciences, Science 352, 899–901; 2016). Preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. The posting of preprints is not regarded as prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration for publication in Gleam Publishing journals. Manuscripts posted on preprint servers will not be considered when determining the advance provided by a study under consideration at a Gleam Publishing journal.

Our policy regarding the posting, licensing, citation of preprints, and communication with the media about preprints of primary research manuscripts is summarized below.

Authors must disclose details of preprint postings, including the DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other stage during the review process at a Gleam Publishing journal. Once the preprint is published, the author is responsible for updating the preprint record with a publication reference, which should include the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal’s website.

Authors may choose any license for the preprint, including Creative Commons (CC) licenses. The type of CC license chosen will affect how the preprint can be shared and reused. The resource documents developed by the ASAPbio licensing task force provide more information to help guide licensing choices.

Preprints may be cited in the reference list of articles submitted for consideration at Gleam Publishing journals, as shown below:

Babichev, S. A., Ries, J. & Lvovsky, A. I. Quantum scissors: teleportation of single-mode optical states using a nonlocal single photon. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208066 (2002).

Researchers may respond to media inquiries regarding a preprint or conference presentation by providing explanations or clarifications about their work and its context. In these circumstances, media coverage will not hinder the editorial handling of the submission. However, researchers should be aware that such coverage may reduce or pre-empt coverage by other media at the time of publication. We also advise that researchers approached by reporters in response to a preprint clearly communicate that the paper has not yet undergone peer review, that the findings are provisional, and that the conclusions may change. More information to guide responsible communication of research reported in preprints can be found in the resource documents developed by the ASAPbio Preprints in the Public Eye project.

Duplicate Publication

Any manuscript submitted to a Gleam Publishing journal must be original, and the manuscript or substantial parts of it must not be under consideration by any other journal. In cases where there is potential for overlap or duplication, we require authors to be transparent. Authors should declare any potentially overlapping publications upon submission, and any overlapping publications must be cited. Any “in press” or unpublished manuscript that is cited or relevant to the editor’s and reviewers’ assessment of the manuscript should be made available upon request. Gleam Publishing reserves the right to evaluate potentially overlapping or redundant publications on a case-by-case basis.

In general, the manuscript should not have been formally published in any journal or other citable form. However, if justified and clearly stated upon submission, there are exceptions to this rule. The details of these exceptions are provided below and summarized in Table 1.

Gleam Publishing is a member of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative and takes all cases of publication misconduct very seriously. Any suspected cases of covert duplicate manuscript submission will be handled as outlined in the COPE guidelines. The editor may contact the authors’ institution (see Misconduct Policy for more information). Gleam Publishing endorses the policies of the ICMJE regarding overlapping publications.

Complete Manuscripts

Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Gleam Publishing currently does not have a co-publication agreement with the Cochrane Library for its systematic reviews. Therefore, Gleam Publishing will only consider publishing novel Cochrane Systematic Reviews or updated versions of articles in the Cochrane Library if they provide substantial new information.

Co-Publication in Multiple Journals

If transparent and with the prior agreement of the relevant journals, co-publication in multiple journals will be considered at the editor’s discretion, provided that the conditions specified in the ICMJE guidelines are met.

Health Technology Assessment (HTA)

The reports from the NHS HTA program are freely accessible online. At the editor’s discretion, some journals published by Gleam Publishing will consider full or shortened versions of these articles for peer review.

Preprint Servers and Author/Institutional Repositories

Posting a manuscript on a preprint server or an author’s personal or institutional website does not constitute a previous publication. Please see our Preprint Sharing and Citation Policy for further information. Gleam Publishing encourages authors to self-archive manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in its journals.

Theses

Gleam Publishing will consider submissions that include material previously included in a PhD or other academic thesis, even if that material has been made publicly available according to the requirements of the institution that awarded the qualification.

Translations into English

Authors must comply with the ICMJE guidelines and seek approval from the original publisher to ensure compliance with the copyright terms of the original publication. Additionally, they should secure permission from the original publisher for the publication of the translation under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0.

Incomplete Manuscripts

Abridged Articles

At the editor’s discretion, some Gleam Publishing journals will consider manuscripts that are substantially extended versions of articles previously published in other peer-reviewed journals. In such cases, the prior publication of an abridged version of the article does not preclude publication, provided that the new manuscript represents a substantially novel contribution to the scientific record. If applicable, authors should seek approval from the original publisher before submitting the extended version of the manuscript.

Abstracts/Posters

Prior abstracts of up to 400 words and posters presented at or published as part of academic meetings do not preclude consideration for peer review of a complete manuscript, as the full manuscript represents a formal advancement in the citable scientific record. Published abstracts should be cited appropriately. Authors should be aware that many conference proceedings exceed the allowable word limit and constitute a citable form of publication.

Datasets

Making scientific datasets publicly available before submission of associated manuscripts will not preclude consideration by a Gleam Publishing journal. As more research funding agencies mandate that their grant holders share the “raw data” research outputs, Gleam Publishing actively encourages such data sharing, provided that appropriate safeguards are implemented to protect personal or sensitive information. See the policy on the publication of clinical datasets (mentioned above) for more information.

Non-Research Articles

Authors of non-research articles, such as commissioned reviews and commentaries, may include figures and tables previously published in other journals, provided they confirm upon submission that permission has been obtained from the original publisher (if applicable) and properly cite the original article. Documentary evidence supporting this permission must be made available to the editor upon request. To avoid potential self-plagiarism, whether inadvertent or otherwise, authors who agree to write commissioned articles should notify the editor of any recent publications or invitations to write on a similar topic.

Open Science

Authors who have previously discussed or posted their data on blogs, wikis, social networking sites, or online electronic lab notebooks are still eligible to submit their findings to Gleam Publishing’s journals. However, due to the rapidly evolving nature of these resources, if any discussion of data or manuscripts posted in these venues has been incorporated into the submitted manuscript, the editor will assess whether there is any duplication in the manuscript.

Study Protocols

The publication of study protocols reduces the risk of non-publication of research findings and facilitates methodological discussion. Several journals under Gleam Publishing advocate for this practice. Therefore, prior publication of a study protocol before submitting a manuscript that reports the results is not considered duplicate publication.

Summary of Clinical Trial Results in Public Registries

Posting summary results of clinical trials in publicly accessible databases is generally not regarded as duplicate publication. Gleam Publishing mandates that authors of manuscripts reporting clinical trials register their trials in a suitably accessible registry (see our Trial Registration Policy for more information). In the US, submitting trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov is a statutory requirement. Additional information regarding this requirement can be found here.

List of Generally Permissible and Non-Permissible Forms of Duplicate/Overlapping Publication

Abridged articles

At the editor’s discretion and with the agreement of the original journal/publisher, the original publication is cited.

Abstracts of up to 400 words or posters presented at scientific meetings

Published abstracts should be cited appropriately.

Co-publication in multiple journals

This is at the editor’s discretion and under the conditions outlined in the ICMJE guidelines.

Cochrane systematic reviews

No, unless it is original or has been substantially updated.

Datasets in public or restricted access repositories

Yes, datasets should be cited in the manuscript or hyperlinked whenever possible.

Figures and tables in non-research articles

Yes, if applicable, permission has been obtained from the original publisher by the submitting author.

HTA reports

At the editor’s discretion, please contact the editor for more information.

Open science: Data posted and discussed on wikis, blogs, online electronic lab notebooks, and networking websites should be incorporated into the submitted manuscript

Yes, it is usually permissible.

Preprint servers, including authors’ personal and institutional websites

Yes, this does not constitute a previous publication.

Study protocol published

Yes, published protocols should be cited.

Summary of results in clinical trial registries

Yes, the accession number should be included in the abstract.

Translations into English

At the editor’s discretion and with the agreement of the original journal/publisher, provided there is no breach of copyright and the original publication is properly cited.

Communication of Findings Before Publication

Gleam Publishing journals aim to facilitate communication among researchers. We support open communications between researchers, whether through recognized community preprint servers, discussions at conferences, or online collaborative platforms such as wikis or the author’s blog. Neither conference presentations nor postings on recognized preprint servers are considered prior publications.

Researchers may respond to media inquiries regarding a preprint or conference presentation by explaining or clarifying their work and providing context. In these circumstances, media coverage will not hinder the editorial handling of the submission.

Researchers should be aware that such coverage may reduce or pre-empt coverage by other media at the time of publication. We also advise that researchers approached by reporters in response to a preprint clearly communicate that the paper has not yet undergone peer review, that the content is provisional, and that the conclusions may change. Authors are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the details of the peer review and editorial processes.

A paper’s peer-reviewed and published version must be publicly available when the work is discussed in the media, allowing the press to provide informed commentary based on this version. Therefore, we strongly discourage the direct solicitation of media coverage prior to the publication of the final version of a paper. If further clarification is required, please contact the press office.

Text Recycling

Authors should disclose and appropriately attribute overlap with their previous publications, while respecting applicable copyright requirements. If submitted text has appeared elsewhere, notify the editor upon submission.

Cases of text recycling will be evaluated in accordance with applicable COPE guidance.

Peer Review

The Journal of Clinical Question operates a single-blind peer-review system. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are aware of authors’ identities and affiliations, while reviewers’ identities are normally concealed from authors. All manuscripts undergo initial editorial assessment. External review requirements vary by article type. An editor with a competing interest must recuse themselves so that an independent editor can handle the manuscript.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final editorial decisions are made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the journal's editorial standards and policies.

To promote transparency in scholarly communication, the anonymized peer-review history of accepted peer-reviewed articles is normally published as supplementary information, subject to the authors' consent and the journal's confidentiality safeguards. This may include reviewer reports, authors' responses, and relevant editorial decision correspondence.

Information may be withheld or redacted where necessary to protect reviewer confidentiality, personal information, patient confidentiality, or other ethical or legal interests.

Further details are provided in the journal's Peer-Review Policies.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Reviewers must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence Policy, including its requirements concerning confidentiality, permitted AI use, disclosure, and reviewer accountability.

Peer Reviewers

Authors may suggest potential reviewers if they wish; however, the decision to consider these reviewers rests solely with the editor. Authors should refrain from suggesting recent collaborators or colleagues from their own institution. If authors wish to propose peer reviewers, they may do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses whenever possible or any information that will help the editor in verifying the reviewer’s identity (for example, an ORCID or Scopus ID).

Authors may request the exclusion of specific reviewers and should explain their reasons. The editor retains final responsibility for reviewer selection and will consider exclusion requests where reasonably justified.

Intentionally falsifying information, such as suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in the rejection of the manuscript and may lead to further investigation in accordance with our Misconduct Policy.

Portability of Peer Review

Updated and effective: 10 September 2026.

The Journal of Clinical Question (JCQ) may consider previous peer-review reports to avoid unnecessary duplication of reviewer work. Transferred manuscripts remain subject to JCQ's editorial assessment, ethical requirements, and publication standards. A transfer, or a favourable report from another journal or service, does not guarantee acceptance.

Internal transfers

Manuscripts and review records may be transferred between Gleam Publishing journals with the authors' agreement and subject to the applicable confidentiality and reviewer-sharing permissions. The receiving editor must have access to the relevant manuscript versions, reports, reviewer identities, and editorial decisions. The receiving journal makes its own assessment and may request revisions or further review.

External reports and required materials

Authors requesting consideration of reports from another journal or an independent peer-review service must identify the originating journal or service and the manuscript identifier. They must provide the manuscript version assessed, the complete reports and decision letters supplied to them, and the current manuscript with a point-by-point response explaining changes made or reasons for disagreeing with particular comments. Authors must not selectively omit unfavourable reports within the review process submitted for consideration, or edit report content. If a service does not issue journal-style decision letters, its available assessment and review records should be supplied instead.

Authors must confirm that the manuscript is no longer under consideration elsewhere and permit JCQ to contact the originating editorial office or service. Reviewers' identities and confidential editor-only materials should be transmitted directly to JCQ by the originating journal or service through an authorised channel; authors are not expected to obtain or disclose identities that were confidential to them.

Verification of authenticity, identity, and independence

Before any external report is counted towards JCQ's peer-review requirements, the Editorial Office must verify its provenance through an authenticated transfer record or direct confirmation from the originating journal or service using independently verified official contact details. The verification must establish which manuscript version was reviewed and link each report to the reviewer who completed it. Where those records do not adequately establish authorship or independent completion of a report, the Editorial Office must seek further confirmation, including from the reviewer through independently verified contact details when appropriate.

The Editorial Office verifies reviewer identity and relevant expertise. The handling editor assesses possible competing interests and circumstances affecting independence, including relevant institutional, collaborative, personal, or financial relationships. A database profile or an author-supplied email address alone does not establish that a particular review was completed by the named individual.

JCQ permits reviewers to remain anonymous to authors, but their identities must be disclosed confidentially to JCQ's editors for their reports to count towards its peer-review requirements. Reports whose provenance, authorship, or independence cannot be adequately established will not count towards those requirements. A manuscript may still be considered through fresh review arranged by JCQ, unless separate concerns warrant rejection or an integrity investigation.

Editorial assessment and further review

The handling editor assesses the verified reports, the authors' responses, unresolved concerns, and changes between manuscript versions. Verified external reports may contribute to JCQ's normal requirement for assessment by at least two independent external reviewers. Further independent review is required where the qualifying reports do not meet the applicable review requirements, lack necessary expertise or depth, or leave substantive concerns that require external assessment. Substantial changes not addressed by the existing reports must be assessed as appropriate before acceptance.

Final decisions are made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for editorial standards, and editors with competing interests must recuse themselves. Neither authors nor the originating journal or review service determine JCQ's publication decision.

Records, permissions, and publication of reports

The Editorial Office retains the transferred materials, verification evidence, permissions, and the handling editor's assessment in the journal's access-controlled manuscript records. These records must identify the reports relied on, any further review undertaken, and the basis of the final decision.

Permission to transfer or use a report for editorial assessment does not by itself authorise public publication of that report. External reports may be included in a published peer-review history only where applicable permissions or licence terms allow this and JCQ's confidentiality safeguards are met. Reviewer names must not be published without explicit permission, unless the reviewer has already expressly made the report public under their name. Confidential editor-only correspondence is excluded from the public review history.

These requirements apply to external reports considered from the effective date, including reports for transferred manuscripts still under consideration. See the Peer-Review Policies and Misconduct policy for related procedures.

Confidentiality

Editors will treat all manuscripts submitted to Gleam Publishing journals with strict confidentiality. Gleam Publishing adheres to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Consequently, reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process and must not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review during or after the peer review process, except for information released by the journal. If reviewers wish to involve a colleague in the review process, they must first obtain permission from the journal. The editor should be informed of the names of individuals who assisted in the review process when the report is submitted.

Manuscripts and peer-review materials will be treated as confidential and will not be disclosed except as necessary for editorial, peer-review, production, integrity, or legal purposes, subject to appropriate confidentiality safeguards.

See the Misconduct and Portability of Peer Review policies for relevant procedures.

Gleam Publishing regularly undertakes research projects aimed at improving processes for authors, reviewers, and editors, as well as enhancing the communication of science in our journals. Participation in this research will not affect the editorial review of manuscripts, the consideration of reviewer reports by editors, or the confidentiality of the submission and review process. Depending on the nature of the research project, we may seek ethical approval and may need to contact you for consent to participate. Research may also be conducted retrospectively after the publication of manuscripts; in all cases, the details of the manuscripts will be kept confidential.

Misconduct

Gleam Publishing is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all forms of misconduct seriously. We follow the COPE guidelines to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors are expected to familiarize themselves with these standards before submitting their manuscripts. Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to, the following:

Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves using data, images, words, or ideas from any source, including abstracts, presentations, theses, research proposals, computer programs, online posts, and unpublished manuscripts, without proper attribution. Any direct or indirect use of such material must be appropriately acknowledged and cited.

Gleam Publishing uses iThenticate plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions. Manuscripts containing plagiarized material will be rejected in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Duplicate Submission or Publication

Authors must declare that their manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere. Submitting the same work to multiple journals is considered misconduct, including cases where an article was previously published in another language.

Secondary submissions, such as translations, may be acceptable under ICMJE guidance, provided the original publisher grants permission, the editor is informed, and the translated work cites the original article.

Gleam Publishing accepts unpublished work derived from an author's thesis, but the thesis must be acknowledged and cited. Manuscripts must also include unique elements not present in the thesis. If work from a thesis has already been published, it will not be considered original.

Text Recycling / Self-Plagiarism

Reusing large portions of previously published work without disclosure is considered unacceptable. Authors must provide appropriate citations and ensure compliance with copyright policies. All instances of text recycling will be handled according to COPE guidelines.

Authorship Misconduct

Authorship requires all four criteria in the Authorship Policy. Misconduct includes:

Ghost authorship: individuals who meet all authorship criteria are omitted from the author list.
Gift authorship: individuals are credited without significant contributions.
Authorship for sale: authorship positions are bought or sold.

Cases of authorship misconduct are handled under COPE guidelines and may be referred to the authors' institutions for further investigation.

Affiliation Misrepresentation

Author affiliations must accurately reflect where the study was conducted, approved, or supported. For non-research articles, affiliations should indicate the author's institutional base at the time of submission. Misrepresentation of affiliation is treated as misconduct, and relevant institutions may be contacted during investigations.

Undisclosed Competing Interests

Competing interests arise when personal, financial, or professional factors could influence judgment. Failure to disclose such interests is considered misconduct. Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from handling submissions where conflicts exist. Manuscripts suspected of undisclosed competing interests will not be considered for publication.

Image Manipulation

Images must accurately represent original data. Manipulating, fabricating, or enhancing images inappropriately is serious misconduct.

Image features must not be added, removed, moved, or obscured in ways that misrepresent the evidence. Disclosure does not make misleading alterations acceptable.

Acceptable adjustments include changes to brightness, contrast, or color balance, provided they do not misrepresent data.

Any permitted image assembly, annotation, or privacy masking must be clearly identified and must not distort the scientific meaning.

If unedited images cannot be provided on request, the manuscript may be rejected or a published article retracted.

Data Falsification or Fabrication

Deliberately altering, falsifying, or fabricating data is a severe breach of ethics. Authors must ensure that the data reported are accurate and representative of their research. Supporting data should be retained in accordance with applicable requirements and made available for editorial investigation through appropriate safeguards. Concerns about unavailable data will be investigated in light of the published Data Availability Statement, ethical and legal restrictions, and the reliability of the findings. Corrective action will be taken where warranted by the investigation.

Peer Review Manipulation

Manipulating the peer review process, including providing fake reviewer details, arranging biased reviews, or appropriating others' work, is prohibited.

All reviewers must adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and maintain strict confidentiality. Reviewers found guilty of misconduct will be removed permanently and reported to their institutions.

Citation Manipulation

Excessive or inappropriate self-citation, reciprocal citation agreements, or coercing authors to cite unnecessary references are considered misconduct. Such practices distort scholarly metrics and undermine academic integrity.

Unethical Research

Research must comply with all local, national, and international ethical standards. Manuscripts will be rejected if:

Required ethical approval is absent and no valid exemption or basis for non-requirement is provided.
Patient consent or privacy protections are inadequate.
Animal welfare standards are not met.

Ethics Dumping

"Ethics dumping" occurs when researchers deliberately conduct studies in regions with less stringent ethical oversight to circumvent international research standards. Such practices are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Copyright Breaches

Third-party material must be used in accordance with its license or other applicable rights. Obtain permission where the intended use is not otherwise permitted, and provide appropriate attribution. Unresolved rights issues must be addressed before publication; see the Permissions guidance.

Corrections and Retractions

Rarely, it may be necessary for Gleam Publishing to issue corrections or retractions of articles published in its journals to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

In line with Gleam Publishing’s Permanency Policy, any corrections or retractions of published articles will be communicated through a Correction or Retraction notice that is bidirectionally linked to the original article. Any alterations to the original article will be described in the notice. The original article will remain in the public domain, and the subsequent correction or retraction will be indexed widely. If any material is considered to infringe upon certain rights or is deemed defamatory, we may be required to remove that material from our site and from archived sites.

Authors, readers, or organizations who become aware of errors or ethical issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the individual journal directly using the contact details available on the journal’s website. The editors will consider all reports and may seek additional expert advice when deciding on the most appropriate course of action. Gleam Publishing’s Research Integrity Group supports editors in addressing publication ethics issues in a manner that complies with the COPE guidelines.

Corrections

At Gleam Publishing, we are committed to maintaining the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of all published articles. If you discover an error in your work, please contact us promptly so we can assess the issue and make any necessary updates. Depending on the nature of the error, we may issue a Correction Notice, Corrigendum, or Erratum to ensure readers have access to the most accurate and reliable information.

Report errors promptly to the journal’s editorial team or contact us; agreement from all co-authors is not required to raise a concern. The editor assesses the evidence and seeks authors’ responses. Errors affecting interpretation without invalidating the findings are addressed through a freely accessible correction linked to the article.

Authors are normally invited to help prepare a correction. The editor may issue a necessary correction if authors disagree or cannot be reached, documenting the basis and notifying them where possible.

For transparency, Gleam Publishing issues two types of corrections: a Corrigendum for author-introduced errors and an Erratum for publisher-introduced errors. Each correction notice will clearly describe the error and explain the changes made. To ensure accessibility, we will publish a separate, linked notice, include it in the online journal issue, and make it freely available to all readers.

Retractions

A Retraction will be issued when a major error, such as flaws in methodology or analysis, invalidates the article's conclusions, or where there is evidence of research or publication misconduct. Examples include conducting research without required ethical approvals, using fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, or duplicate publication.

Decisions to retract an article are made in accordance with Gleam Publishing's policies and COPE guidelines following a full investigation conducted by Gleam Publishing's editorial staff in collaboration with the journal's editorial team. Authors or institutions may also request a retraction if they believe their reasons meet the required criteria. Retractions are issued to correct the scholarly record and should not be viewed as punitive toward the authors.

Retractions will be considered in cases where:

The findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or image manipulation) or honest error (e.g., miscalculations or experimental flaws).
The findings have been published elsewhere without proper referencing, permission, or justification (e.g., redundant or duplicate publication).
The article involves plagiarism.
The editor has lost confidence in the validity or integrity of the article.
There is evidence or suspicion of authorship for sale.
There is evidence of compromised peer review or systematic manipulation.
The research is unethical or breaches editorial policies.
Authors have deliberately provided fraudulent or inaccurate information or breached the Author Publishing Agreement (APA).

When a decision is made to retract an article, Gleam Publishing will:

Add a clear "retracted" watermark to the final published version of the article.
Issue a separate retraction statement, titled "[Retraction] [Article Title]", linked directly to the retracted article on the Gleam Publishing website.
Paginate and include the retraction statement in the online journal issue for permanent reference.

Editorial Expressions of Concern

Expressions of Concern may be issued when serious concerns such as potential research or publication misconduct have been raised, but the outcome of an investigation is inconclusive or the process will take a considerable amount of time to complete. This may happen due to ongoing institutional investigations or other circumstances beyond the journal's control.

Once the investigation concludes, an appropriate notice such as a Retraction or Correction may be published alongside the original article. All related documents will remain part of the permanent publication record.

Expressions of Concern may be considered when:

There is inconclusive evidence of misconduct, but the concerns are significant enough to inform readers.
There are well-founded doubts about the reliability of findings, yet there is limited cooperation from the authors' institution(s) in investigating the matter.
An investigation into alleged misconduct is unfair, biased, or incomplete, making a clear outcome impossible.
An investigation is underway, but resolution will be delayed and the nature of the concerns warrants notifying readers.

Every Expression of Concern will be linked to the original article to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Removal of Published Content

In exceptional circumstances, where the problems cannot be addressed through a Retraction or Correction notice. Gleam Publishing reserves the right to remove an article, chapter, book, or other content from its online platforms. The removal may be either temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (e.g., title and authors) will be retained and accompanied by a statement explaining the reasons for the content’s removal.

This action may be taken under the following circumstances:

Gleam Publishing has been advised that the content is defamatory, infringes upon a third party’s intellectual property right, violates the right to privacy or any other legal rights, or is otherwise unlawful.
A court or government order has been issued or is likely to be issued, requiring the removal of such content.
If acted upon, the content would pose an immediate and severe risk to health.

Appeals and Complaints

Appeal Against a Rejection

If you wish to request that the editor or editorial board reconsider a manuscript rejection, you should first contact the editor following the instructions provided on the journal’s website. Such requests are considered appeals, which, by policy, must be prioritized after the expected workload. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals often take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. The editorial board member responsible for the paper or the editor will make the final decision regarding appeals.

In general, an appeal against a rejection decision will be considered only if:

The authors can demonstrate that a referee or the editors made an error that influenced the final decision during the review process;
Important additional data can be provided;
A convincing case of bias in the process can be demonstrated.

Appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office at editor@gleampub.com and should include the manuscript number and the specific grounds for reconsideration.

If appeals are successful, authors will receive instructions on how to proceed. If an appeal merits further consideration, the editor may send the authors’ response and the revised paper for additional peer review. For all other feedback and complaints, please refer to the individual journal’s “About” pages for more information.

Complaints

Complaints regarding editorial processes or publication ethics will initially be handled by the editor responsible for the journal. If the editor is the subject of the complaint, contact the editorial and publishing management team at contact@gleampub.com.

For complaints about processes, such as the duration of the review, the editor will review and respond to the complainant’s concerns. This feedback will be shared with relevant stakeholders to guide improvements in processes and procedures.

For complaints about publication ethics or scientific content, the editor will follow the guidelines published by the COPE. In complex cases, the editor may seek advice from Gleam Publishing’s Research Integrity Group for additional guidance. Subsequently, the editor will determine an appropriate course of action and provide feedback to the complainant.

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal’s editorial and publishing management team for further investigation. If no publishing contact is identified, please send your query to contact@gleampub.com

Collections and Special Issues

All manuscripts submitted to the Gleam Publishing Journal Collections or Special Issues are assessed according to the journal’s standard editorial criteria and are subject to the established Editorial Policies, including the Competing Interests Policy. Additionally, the content of each submission will be evaluated to ensure it falls within the scope of the collection or special issue.

All submissions that meet the journal’s criteria for peer review will undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. For detailed information about the review process, please visit the journal’s website. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors of the Collection or Special Issue have competing interests is handled by another editor who has no competing interests, thereby ensuring an objective evaluation of these submissions.

Back to Home