Journal of Advanced Cytology - Editorial Policies

Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, clinical relevance, and ethical compliance.

• Ethics approval and informed consent for human studies
• Clinical trial registration before enrollment
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding
• Originality and prohibition of duplicate submission

Peer review is confidential and aims to provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and validity.

Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to design, analysis, or manuscript preparation.

Human studies must include ethics approval and informed consent statements.

Animal studies must follow welfare guidelines and include protocol approval identifiers.

Authors must provide data availability statements and describe analytical methods clearly.

Figures must reflect original data. Adjustments must be applied uniformly and described in the methods.

Errors may be corrected through notices or retractions when required. Appeals are reviewed by senior editors.

Concerns about fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism are investigated with documented evidence.

The journal may request raw data or institutional statements when needed.

Submitted manuscripts and peer review content are confidential and should not be shared outside the review process.

Complaints are handled by senior editors to ensure fairness and confidentiality.

Disputes over authorship or ethics may require institutional clarification.

Authors may submit an appeal with a clear rationale and evidence addressing decision criteria.

Appeals are evaluated by editors not involved in the original review to ensure independence.

If a manuscript has appeared as a preprint, authors should disclose preprint details at submission.

The submitted version should reflect any updates since preprint posting.

Funding sources and sponsor roles must be disclosed to avoid bias and maintain trust.

Undisclosed funding may result in correction or withdrawal of the article.

Corrections are issued when factual errors affect interpretation. Retractions are issued for confirmed misconduct or unreliable data.

Reviewers must provide fair, respectful assessments and avoid using confidential information for personal advantage.

Editors may request raw data or additional documentation when concerns arise during review or after publication.

Editorial decisions are made without influence from sponsors, advertisers, or funding bodies.

Authors should describe methods, data handling, and limitations in a way that supports replication and clinical interpretation.

Transparent reporting improves trust in cytology evidence and reduces review delays.

Authors are expected to cooperate with correction requests and provide clarifications when needed.

Policies are designed to protect the integrity of cytology research and ensure fair editorial decisions.

Authors can reduce delays by aligning submissions with ethics, data, and reporting requirements before review.

• Provide ethics approvals and consent statements
• Disclose funding and conflicts of interest
• Include complete data availability information
• Ensure originality and proper citation

Policies may be updated to reflect evolving standards in research integrity and data sharing.

Authors are encouraged to review policies before submission to avoid delays.

Policy adherence supports efficient editorial workflow.

Strong compliance reduces the need for post submission clarifications.

Consistent adherence supports timely publication and protects the cytology record.

Policy clarity supports consistent decision making across editorial teams.

Shared standards protect credibility across publications.

Standardization supports trust across the cytology community.

Policy adherence promotes ethical publishing.

Ethical rigor improves trust in cytology findings.

Trust sustains the journal reputation across institutions.

Reputation supports long term readership.

Ethics compliance is required for all human and animal studies, including clear consent documentation.

Submissions lacking ethics details may be returned for clarification before review.

• Include protocol approval identifiers
• Provide informed consent statements
• Describe privacy protections for images
• Disclose any ethical limitations

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose conflicts and recuse themselves when appropriate.