Publishing Ethic

1. Publication Ethics Statement

Advances in Modern Biomedicine (AMB, E-ISSN: 2982-3870) follow the best practices such as those outlined by these organizations:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Council of Scientific Editors (CSE)

National Information Standards Organization (NISO)

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

World Medical Association (WMA)

2. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

AMB is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Authors are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines when submitting their manuscripts:

2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, has not been published previously in any language, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Proper citation and acknowledgment must be provided for any material derived from other sources, including text, ideas, data, findings, images, and audiovisual materials.

Plagiarism, in all its forms, is strictly prohibited and constitutes a serious violation of publication ethics in AMB. This includes, but is not limited to: Directly using others' work without quotation marks and proper citation. Rephrasing others' ideas or text without appropriate attribution; Using data, graphs, figures, or images from another source without clear permission and acknowledgment; Appropriating research hypotheses, methodologies, or conclusions without credit; Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without transparent declaration and citation, which includes publishing the same manuscript in different journals and submitting articles that only have minor modifications from prior publications.

All submissions undergo similarity screening using iThenticate software. Manuscripts with iThenticate similarity scores exceeding our standards will not proceed to peer review. If plagiarism is detected during peer review or after publication, the manuscript may be subject to corrections, retractions, or revisions based on the severity, context, and impact on research integrity.

AMB reserves the right to request original, high-resolution images and unprocessed data files for post-publication verification. All submitted data must be original and are expected to be free of inappropriate manipulation, which includes but is not limited to the exclusion of data points, data fabrication, the selective presentation of results to support a specific conclusion, and the intentional choice of analytical tools to achieve a desired outcome. Furthermore, image processing must not be used to misrepresent the original information. This prohibits introducing, enhancing, moving, or obscuring features; inappropriately grouping images from different sources or experiments; and making adjustments to contrast, brightness, or color balance that obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original.

Concerns regarding undeclared image modifications during manuscript processing or after publication will trigger an investigation, requiring authors to provide original data. If these cannot be obtained, peer review will be suspended until resolved. Confirmed irregularities may result in manuscript rejection or corrections/retractions.‌

2.2 Authorship Criteria

AMB maintains a policy of transparent authorship. Accordingly, all submitting authors are required to provide a comprehensive Author Contributions statement with their manuscript. This statement should be incorporated into the main text within a distinct section, labeled "Author Contributions," and positioned before the reference list. Each contributor must be clearly identified by their initials or full name, with their individual roles explicitly described thereafter. Multiple roles per author are permissible and should be fully enumerated.

We recommend using the standardized Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT, https://credit.niso.org/ ) to describe author contributions. This framework defines 14 distinct roles. Authors should select the role(s) that best describe their contribution(s).

(1) Conceptualization: Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.

(2) Methodology: Development or design of methodology; creation of models.

(3) Software: Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms.

(4) Validation: Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.

(5) Formal Analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.

(6) Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.

(7) Data Curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.

(8) Writing – Original Draft: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft.

(9) Writing – Review & Editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision.

(10) Visualization: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation.

(11) Resources: Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.

(12) Funding Acquisition: Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

(13) Supervision: Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

(14) Project Administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

The order of authors should be a joint decision of all co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the final manuscript and agree to be listed in the proposed order.

In cases where two or more authors have made an equivalent core contribution, this may be indicated by a note (e.g., †These authors contributed equally to this work.) in the author superscript and the Author Contributions Statement.

2.3 Data Accuracy and Integrity

Authors must ensure that all data, results, and methodologies presented in the manuscript are accurate, objectively represented, and a complete reflection of the research conducted. This includes a thorough verification of all factual information, numerical data, statistical analyses, and representative images.

Any form of scientific misconduct, such as the fabrication of non-existent data, the falsification or manipulation of data to distort the true findings, or the selective reporting of results to misrepresent the overall conclusions of the research, is considered a serious ethical violation and is strictly prohibited. Digital images presented in the manuscript must not be manipulated in a way that could misinterpret the original data. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color must be applied evenly across the entire image and must not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original .

To uphold data accuracy and integrity principles, authors must retain or submit the raw, unprocessed data and all relevant source materials used to generate the figures, tables, and results reported in the manuscript. These materials must be retained for a substantial period following publication and be readily available for examination by the journal editors, peer reviewers, or other qualified scientific bodies upon request. Furthermore, authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data in recognized, discipline-specific public repositories where feasible and to cite the data persistently in the reference list. The manuscript must also provide a clear description of the data collection methods and any processing steps to ensure the reproducibility of the research.

Any suspected breach of above policies will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines . Should substantive inaccuracies or data manipulations be identified post-publication, it will result in the publication of a correction or the retraction of the article.

2.4 Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) exists when an author's private interests, whether financial, personal, professional, or political, could be perceived as inappropriately influencing the objectivity, judgment, or integrity of their research. It is essential to emphasize that the perception of a conflict carries the same significance as an actual conflict. To ensure transparency, maintain scientific integrity, and uphold public trust, all authors are required to fully disclose any interests that could be construed as influencing the work. The responsibility for disclosure rests with all co-authors and must cover the period from the inception of the research to its final publication. While the existence of a COI does not automatically imply wrongdoing, the principle of full transparency applies in all cases of uncertainty.

2.4.1 Financial Conflicts

Financial conflicts of interest may arise from various sources, including but not limited to: funding or research support from entities with a vested interest in the study's outcome; personal financial interests such as stocks, ownership, or patents with royalty potential; current or anticipated consulting, employment, or honoraria from relevant organizations; and substantial travel grants or logistical support provided for the conduct or presentation of the research.

2.4.2 Non-Financial Conflicts

Non-financial conflicts of interest encompass a broad spectrum of situations in which personal, professional, or ideological factors may unduly influence judgment. These can include, but are not limited to: personal relationships with individuals in affected organizations; direct academic competition or intellectual antagonism; affiliations with relevant advisory or advocacy groups; strongly held political, religious, or ideological beliefs pertaining to the research; and circumstances in which professional ambition or advancement could be affected by the study's outcomes.

2.4.3 Conflict of Interest Statement in the Manuscript

A "Conflict of Interest" statement must be included as a distinct section in the manuscript file, placed just before the reference list. The statement must be specific for each author. If no conflicts exist, authors must explicitly state so.

Examples:

With Conflicts: "Author A received research grants from [Company Name] for this study. Author B serves on the scientific advisory board of [Company Name] and holds stock options. The remaining authors declare no competing interests."

No Conflicts: "The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest."

2.4.4 Disclosure During Submission

In addition to the statement within the manuscript, authors must fully and accurately declare any conflicts of interest using the journal's online submission system. The information provided in the system must be consistent with the statement in the manuscript.

2.4.5 Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest may be considered a breach of publication ethics and can lead to serious consequences, including but not limited to: rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, and notification of the authors' institution(s).

2.5 Ethical Approval

For studies involving human or animal subjects, authors must provide evidence of ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee. Informed consent must be obtained from participants, and a statement confirming this should be included in the manuscript.

2.5.1 Ethical Approval and Oversight

For all studies involving human subjects, human tissues, or animal experimentation, authors must declare within the manuscript that the research has received formal approval from an appropriate Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), Institutional Review Board (IRB), or Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) prior to the commencement of the study, and must explicitly state the name of the approving committee, the associated approval number or reference ID, and approval date, typically within the 'Methods' section.

2.5.2 Studies Involving Human Participants

For studies involving human participants, research must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must explicitly state that informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legally authorized representatives and describe the consent process used. Additionally, authors have an obligation to protect participant anonymity by removing all identifying information from the manuscript, and must obtain specific publication consent where any risk of identification exists.

2.5.3 Clinical Trials

All clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry (e.g., https://ClinicalTrials.gov, or any primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) prior to participant enrollment. The trial registration number and the name of the registry must be provided in the manuscript.

2.5.4 Studies Involving Animals

For research involving vertebrates or higher invertebrates, all procedures must be conducted in accordance with established animal welfare guidelines. Authors should explicitly describe the steps taken to adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replace, Reduce, Refine) in the study design and provide detailed descriptions of the methods used for anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia, ensuring they align with accepted veterinary best practices.

2.5.5 Studies Involving Plants

All experimental research on plants, whether involving cultivated or wild species, must comply with institutional, national, and international guidelines. For every submitted manuscript, comprehensive details on the plant material's origin and supporting genetic information must be provided. Specifically, for studies involving rare and non-model plants (beyond typical model organisms such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, or Oryza sativa), it is mandatory to deposit a voucher specimen in a publicly accessible herbarium or museum. This practice is crucial for future verification of material identity, especially in light of potential taxonomic revisions, and such specimens may be requested by peer reviewers or other researchers to confirm the study's botanical basis.

2.5.6 Studies Involving Cell Lines

In research involving cell lines, the Materials and Methods section must explicitly specify the origin of all cell lines used. For established cell lines, appropriate references (whether from published literature or commercial sources) should be provided along with their specific designations. For any previously unpublished de novo cell lines—including those obtained from other laboratories—authors must submit documentation of approval from an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board. For human-derived cell lines, verification of written informed consent is required. Furthermore, authors are strongly encouraged to provide recent authentication records (e.g., STR profiling data) and confirm the absence of mycoplasma contamination where applicable, to ensure the validity and reproducibility of the research findings.

2.6 Acknowledgment of Sources

A fundamental principle of academic and research integrity is the transparent and complete acknowledgment of all sources that have contributed to one's work. This extends beyond simply listing references and requires authors to formally recognize the various forms of support that enabled the research.

First and foremost, authors must disclose all sources of financial support, including grants, fellowships, and any other funding, typically by citing the full name of the funding agency and the associated grant number. Furthermore, it is essential to properly credit the origins of any data, materials, or code that were not generated by the authors themselves, ensuring reproducibility and giving credit to the original creators.

Crucially, all forms of intellectual contribution must be acknowledged. This includes appropriately crediting collaborators and contributors through co-authorship, following established guidelines for authorship. Individuals or groups who provided assistance that does not constitute authorship—such as technical support, data collection, statistical analysis, editorial feedback, or simply insightful discussions—should be explicitly mentioned in the Acknowledgments section. This practice not only ensures fairness and upholds ethical standards but also provides readers with a complete understanding of the work's provenance and the collaborative efforts behind it. Failure to properly acknowledge sources can constitute plagiarism or academic misconduct.

2.7 Multiple or Concurrent Submissions

AMB is committed to upholding publishing ethics and considers practices such as simultaneous multiple submissions, substantial republication of previously reported work without transparent cross-reference, and the unjustified fragmentation of research into least publishable units to be breaches of professional conduct.

Authors must transparently declare any data, hypotheses, or samples shared with other works. Manuscripts found under simultaneous review elsewhere will be rejected immediately, while confirmed cases of redundant publication may lead to rejection, notification of the authors' institution, and potentially a temporary submission ban. However, authors are welcome to submit manuscripts previously rejected by another journal, provided they have addressed prior reviewers' comments or believe their work aligns better with our scope, and are expected to engage in the peer-review process in good faith, submitting to only one journal at a time.

2.8 Corrections and Retractions

Authors must notify the journal promptly if significant errors or inaccuracies are discovered in their work, either before or after publication.

2.8.1 Corrections

Once published, either online or in print, articles are typically considered the final version of record. However, in the event that minor errors are identified, such as typographical errors, inaccuracies in author affiliations, or other non-critical factual inaccuracies that do not affect the scientific integrity, results, or conclusions of the article, a correction may be issued at the Editors' discretion. This decision may follow an editorial assessment, which can be prompted by reader feedback, author self-identification, or editorial review. In many cases, authors are required to formally apply for a correction by submitting a signed request that details the error and provides the correct information. The journal will then publish a Correction Notice that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. This notice explicitly outlines the changes made and references the original publication, preserving the completeness and traceability of the scholarly record. To ensure transparency, the journal may release a new version of the article incorporating the corrections, while the original version is maintained in the archive for reference; however, it is the latest, corrected version that should be used for future citation.

2.8.2 Retractions

A Retraction will be considered by the journal when compelling evidence indicates that a published article contains serious flaws, research misconduct, ethical violations, or other issues that fundamentally compromise the validity of the findings or the reliability of the conclusions. The serious concerns include, but are not limited to:

Significant Errors: These encompass major inaccuracies that invalidate the study's core findings and conclusions. This includes irreproducible results, fundamental errors in experimental design or methodology, or miscalculations that drastically alter the interpretation of the data.

Ethical Breaches: This includes but is not limited to research without appropriate ethical approval, plagiarism, image manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, and unauthorized use of third-party data or materials.

Other Undermining Issues: Such as compromised peer review processes, failure to disclose major competing interests, or the identification of reporting errors that are both central to the findings and cannot be adequately addressed by a correction.

Decisions regarding retraction will be made in accordance with the guidelines and flowcharts provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Upon retraction, a formal notice will be published that is fully indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article itself will be digitally watermarked "Retracted" on each page, and its title will be prefixed with “Retracted Article” to clearly signal its invalid status to the academic community and alert readers to its status.

2.8.3 Changes to Authorship

Any change to the list of authors—including addition, removal, or reordering of names—after the initial submission of a manuscript is considered a serious matter. Such changes require strong justification, must align with the journal's authorship policy, and must be approved by the journal editor before they are finalized. The corresponding author is primarily responsible for initiating and managing any request for authorship change. The following guidelines and procedures must be strictly adhered to:

Prerequisites for Any Change: The request must be agreed upon by all co-authors, including any author being added or removed. The change must be for a legitimate reason, such as the addition of an individual who has made a substantial contribution that warrants authorship or the correction of an initial oversight.

Required Documentation: The corresponding author must submit a formal, signed request to the journal editorial office, which typically must include: (1) A detailed explanation for the proposed change, clearly stating the reason for the addition, removal, or reordering. (2) Written confirmation from all co-authors (via email or a signed letter) approving the change. This includes explicit consent from any author being added or removed.

Timing of Requests: Authorship changes are generally only considered before the manuscript is formally accepted. Requests made during the final stages of review or after acceptance are subject to stricter scrutiny and may be denied. Changes are typically not permitted after the article has been published, except to correct a critical error, which may be addressed via a formal corrigendum.

3. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

As guardians of scholarly quality and integrity, reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards throughout the peer review process.

3.1 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the submitted manuscript and all related materials as strictly confidential documents, handling them with the utmost care. They must not share, discuss, disclose, or use the content for any purpose outside the authorized peer-review process. This includes a prohibition on creating unauthorized copies, storing the manuscript on insecure systems, or submitting any part of it into AI tools. Upon completion of the review, all local electronic copies must be deleted, and physical copies securely destroyed.

The confidentiality extends to the intellectual content of the manuscript. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using any information, data, theories, or methodologies from the unpublished work in their own research, grants, or publications. They must not delegate the review task or discuss the manuscript with colleagues without first obtaining explicit permission from the journal editor. Any knowledge gained is to be used solely for formulating the review report.

Any breach of this confidentiality policy is a serious ethical violation and will be addressed according to COPE guidelines and the journal's policies. If a reviewer needs to consult a colleague on a specific aspect, they must seek prior authorization from the editor, ensure the assistant's identity is disclosed, and guarantee that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. External disclosure of information is forbidden without direct permission from the journal office.

3.2 Reviewers Principles

The integrity and quality of the peer review process depend on the expertise and impartiality of our reviewers. To ensure rigorous and meaningful evaluations, reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

Accept Assignments Within Expertise: Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that align closely with their specific, current field of knowledge. This ensures they can adequately assess the work’s novelty, methodology, and contribution to the field. If a manuscript falls outside their competence, they should decline the invitation promptly via the journal’s online system to avoid delays. When declining, we encourage suggesting qualified alternative reviewers to assist the editorial office.

Acknowledge Limitations: Even when a manuscript is broadly within a reviewer’s expertise, they should acknowledge any specific methodological or theoretical gaps in their knowledge and frame feedback accordingly.

Assess Objectively and Without Bias: Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on their intellectual and scientific merit—considering importance, originality, clarity, and validity—without regard to authors’ nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, seniority, affiliation, or political views.

Provide Constructive and Respectful Feedback: Reviews should be well-reasoned, respectful, and aimed at improving the quality of the work. Hostile, derogatory, or personally inflammatory comments are unacceptable.

Declare Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline to review if they have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors or their institutions, or a strong bias regarding the subject matter, that could compromise objectivity.

Maintain Confidentiality: Unpublished content and knowledge of the review process must not be shared or used for any purpose other than the evaluation.

This journal is committed to upholding these standards to ensure a fair, unbiased, and constructive peer review process. Reviewers who do not adhere to these principles may be removed from our database.

3.3 Timeliness for Reviewers

We deeply value the expertise and dedication our reviewers bring to this essential service. Adherence to this deadline is of paramount importance to ensure a respectful and efficient process for authors and to maintain the journal's publication schedule.

We understand that unforeseen circumstances can arise. If a reviewer anticipates a delay or is unable to complete the review, we expect prompt notification to the handling editor as soon as possible. This proactive communication allows the editorial office to take necessary action. In such cases, we greatly appreciate suggestions for suitable alternative reviewers, which can significantly expedite the reassignment process.

While occasional delays with communication are understandable, consistent failure to meet deadlines may result in a reviewer being deactivated from our database.

3.4 Ethical Concerns

Reviewers play a vital role in upholding the ethical standards of scholarly publishing by remaining vigilant for potential misconduct beyond their assessment of scientific merit. This includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism (the unattributed use of another's ideas, text, or data), data falsification, and duplicate publication. Should a reviewer identify significant, improperly cited similarities between the submitted manuscript and other works, they have a responsibility to report these concerns.

All ethical concerns must be communicated directly and confidentially to the handling editor through the secure channel we provide. Reviewers should not attempt to investigate the matter themselves or contact the authors directly. Instead, they should provide the editor with specific references or details to aid the subsequent investigation.

AMB treats all such concerns with the utmost seriousness and confidentiality. The editorial team will then conduct a thorough investigation following COPE or similar guidelines. Reviewers who identify ethical issues perform a critical service in protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

3.5 Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers are expected to verify the scholarly integrity and contextual accuracy of the manuscript's references. A key responsibility is to ensure that authors have appropriately cited all relevant prior work, providing proper attribution to the intellectual contributions that form the foundation of the presented research.

Reviewers should actively assess whether the reference list is comprehensive and current. If important published studies, particularly those foundational to the field or directly relevant to the manuscript's claims, are omitted, reviewers must highlight these specific omissions in their comments. This process ensures the work is properly situated within the existing scholarly conversation and helps authors strengthen their manuscript's validity. However, reviewers should refrain from insisting on the inclusion of their own work unless its omission constitutes a significant scholarly gap.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Editors

As guardians of the scholarly publication process, editors carry the fundamental responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality assurance. Their role requires unwavering commitment to ethical principles that ensure the credibility of published research and sustain the academic community's trust. The following comprehensive guidelines establish the framework for editorial conduct at this journal.

4.1 Editorial Independence and Fairness

Editorial decisions must be grounded exclusively in the manuscript's scholarly significance, methodological soundness, and conceptual originality. These determinations should remain entirely insulated from commercial considerations, institutional pressures, or personal relationships. Editors must implement systematic safeguards to prevent any form of discrimination based on authors' geographical origin, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, or seniority. The evaluation framework should be consistently applied across all submissions, with special attention given to ensuring equitable consideration for works originating from diverse academic traditions and developing regions.

4.2 Confidentiality

The principle of confidentiality extends to all components of the submission and review ecosystem. Editors must ensure the secure handling of manuscript files, reviewer reports, and author correspondence throughout the editorial workflow. This includes protecting reviewer identities in double-blind review systems and safeguarding unpublished research data from unauthorized access. Confidentiality obligations persist beyond the initial publication decision, requiring careful archival and disposal procedures for sensitive manuscript information.

4.3 Conflict of Interest

Editors must maintain constant vigilance in identifying actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. These include not only direct financial interests but also intellectual conflicts arising from competitive research programs, personal relationships with authors, or institutional affiliations that might compromise impartial judgment. When conflicts are identified, editors should immediately recuse themselves from the decision-making process and document the transfer of editorial responsibility. AMB maintains a public record of editorial conflicts and their management to ensure procedural transparency.

4.4 Ethical Oversight

Proactive ethical supervision requires editors to implement systematic screening for plagiarism, data manipulation, and image integrity issues across all submissions. Editors should employ specialized software tools while recognizing their limitations and the necessity of human expert judgment. When ethical concerns emerge, editors must follow established investigative protocols in consultation with COPE guidelines, institutional authorities, and subject matter experts. The editorial responsibility includes post-publication vigilance and appropriate corrective actions when ethical violations are confirmed.

4.5 Timeliness

Efficient process management demands that editors establish clear timelines for each editorial phase while maintaining flexibility for complex cases requiring extended review. AMB implements automated tracking systems to monitor submission progress while ensuring personal editorial engagement at critical decision points. Editors must balance the imperative for timely decisions with the necessity of comprehensive evaluation, particularly for multidisciplinary works requiring multiple specialist reviews.

4.6 Peer Review Process
Editors should cultivate and maintain a diverse reviewer database representing global expertise across disciplinary specialties and methodological approaches. The reviewer selection process must consider not only subject matter expertise but also demonstrated review quality and reliability. Editors have responsibility for mentoring new reviewers, providing constructive feedback on review quality, and recognizing outstanding peer review contributions. AMB supports editorial discretion in reconciling conflicting reviews while maintaining transparency about the decision-making rationale.

4.7 Transparency and Accountability

AMB maintains publicly accessible documentation of all editorial policies, review procedures, and ethical guidelines. Correction protocols ensure that errors in published works are promptly addressed with appropriate levels of notification—from minor errata to full retractions—with clear cross-referencing between original publications and subsequent corrections. The editorial office documents and reviews all appeals of editorial decisions through established grievance procedures.

4.8 Respect for Authors and Reviewers

Editors should foster a scholarly environment characterized by mutual respect and constructive dialogue. This includes ensuring that reviewer comments maintain professional tone and substantive focus, while protecting authors from ad hominem criticisms or non-substantive objections. AMB provides authors with detailed guidance for revising manuscripts and formal appeal mechanisms for editorial decisions. Editors also protect reviewers from inappropriate author responses and acknowledge reviewer contributions through formal recognition programs.