Table of Contents

1. Overview
2. Communicate with Respect
3. Ethics and Consent
4. Research Involving Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells
5. Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER)
6. Research Involving Animals
7. Dual Use Research of Concern
8. Standards for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine
9. Consent for Publication
10. Trial Registration
11. Availability of Data and Materials
12. Standards of Reporting
13. Describing New Taxa
14. Competing Interests
15. Authorship
16. Artificial Intelligence (AI)
17. Citations
18. Preprint Sharing and Citation
19. Duplicate Publication
20. Communication of Findings Before Publication
21. Text Recycling
22. Peer Review
23. Confidentiality
24. Misconduct
25. Corrections and Retractions
26. Appeals and Complaints
27. Collections and Special Issues

Overview

Back to top

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.

Communicate with Respect

Back to top

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

Back to top

Ethics Approval

Research involving human participants, materials, or data must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must receive approval from an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this approval, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number, where applicable, must be included in all manuscripts reporting such research. 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. Additional information and documentation to support this exemption should be available to the editor upon request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the editor determines that the research has not been conducted within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, the editor may contact the ethics committee for further information.

Retrospective Ethics Approval

If a study has not received ethics committee approval prior to its commencement, retrospective ethics approval is usually unattainable, and the manuscript may not be eligible for peer review. The decision to proceed with peer review in such cases rests at the editor’s discretion.

New Clinical Tools and Procedures

Authors who report the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, such as a technical advance or case report, must provide a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool is deemed more appropriate than standard clinical practice to address the patient’s clinical needs. This justification is not required if the new procedure has been approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Additionally, authors are expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool when a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Consent to Participate

For all research involving human participants, informed consent must be obtained from participants (or their parents or legal guardians in the case of minors under 18). A statement to this effect should be included in the manuscript. Manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example, unconscious patients) where there is potential for coercion (such as prisoners) or where consent may not have been fully informed will be evaluated at the editor’s discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further review. Consent must be obtained for all personally identifiable data, including biomedical, clinical, and biometric information. In articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also specify the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) through which the organs/tissues were acquired. Documentary evidence of consent must be provided upon request.

Research Involving Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells

Back to top

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 2016 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)

Back to top

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

Back to top

Experimental research involving vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Additionally, such research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee whenever possible. 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

Back to top

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

Back to top

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

Back to top

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.

In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and no identifiable details about individuals are reported within the manuscript, consent for the publication of these images may not be required. The final decision regarding the requirement for consent to publish rests with the editor.

Trial Registration

Back to top

Gleam Publishing actively supports initiatives aimed at improving the reporting of clinical trials, including the prospective registration of these trials in suitable publicly available databases. In line with ICMJE guidelines, Gleam Publishing mandates the registration of all clinical trials that are reported in manuscripts submitted to its journals.

The ICMJE adopts the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a clinical trial: “any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes.” This definition includes Phase I to IV trials. The ICMJE defines health-related interventions as “any intervention used to modify a biomedical or health-related outcome” and characterizes health-related outcomes as “any biomedical or health-related measures obtained in patients or participants.” Authors who are uncertain whether their trial needs registration should consult the ICMJE FAQs for further information.

Suitable publicly available registries include those listed on the ICMJE website, as well as any of the primary registries that participate in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

The trial registration number (TRN) and the registration date should be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

The publication of study protocols reduces the risk of non-publication of research findings, facilitates methodological discussion, and is encouraged by several journals under Gleam Publishing. If a study protocol for a trial has been published, it should be cited in the manuscript.

For clinical trials that have not been registered prospectively, Gleam Publishing encourages retrospective registration to ensure the comprehensive publication of all results. Further information on retrospective registration can be found through the AllTrials Campaign, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Department of Health.

Many journals published by Gleam Publishing will consider manuscripts that describe retrospectively registered studies. The TRN, registration date, and the phrase “retrospectively registered” should be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

Registration of Systematic Reviews

Gleam Publishing supports the prospective registration of systematic reviews and encourages authors to register their reviews in a suitable registry, such as PROSPERO. Authors who have registered their reviews should include the registration number as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

Availability of Data and Materials

Back to top

The submission of a manuscript to a Gleam Publishing journal implies that the materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes without breaching participant confidentiality.

For all journals, Gleam Publishing strongly encourages that all datasets upon which a paper’s conclusions are based be made available to readers. In cases where a community-established norm for data sharing exists, Gleam Publishing mandates data deposition (for data types requiring deposition, see below). 

We encourage authors to ensure that their datasets are either deposited in publicly available repositories (where applicable) or presented in the main manuscript or additional supporting files in a machine-readable format (such as spreadsheets rather than PDFs) whenever possible. For several journals, the deposition of the data on which the manuscript’s conclusions rely is mandatory. Please consult the individual journal’s submission guidelines for more information.

Authors seeking assistance with understanding our data-sharing policies, finding a suitable data repository, or organizing and sharing research data are encouraged to contact us for additional guidance.

Mandated Data Deposition Based on Community-Established Norms

For certain data types, such as genomic data, nucleic acid sequences, or protein sequences, Gleam Publishing mandates data deposition in a publicly accessible repository upon submission. This requirement aligns with community-accepted standards for data deposition and sharing.

Please consult this list of mandated data types to ensure that all relevant data are deposited in an appropriate repository and linked to your manuscript.

Such data must be available to editors and reviewers for evaluation during the peer review process and must be released to the public without restrictions upon publication.

Special Considerations

• DNA and RNA Sequences:

The deposition of novel DNA and RNA sequences, as well as novel genome assembly data, is mandatory. We strongly encourage the deposition of all DNA and RNA sequences. Novel DNA sequences, novel RNA sequences, and novel genome assembly data must be submitted to repositories that are part of the International Nucleotide Sequence Collaboration (INSDC) or those working toward INSDC inclusion. The assembly must be made available alongside the raw sequence reads when publishing reference genomes. Sequences must be deposited even for short stretches of novel sequence information, such as epitopes, functional domains, genetic markers, or haplotypes. We recommend that short novel sequences be supplemented with surrounding sequence information to provide context. The sequences of all small RNA probes that are central to the paper’s conclusions must be included. Gleam Publishing highly encourages the deposition of microbial assemblies derived from metagenomic data.

• Genomics and Transcriptomics Datasets:

When depositing genomic and transcriptomic datasets, Gleam Publishing encourages the provision of metadata to facilitate the reproducibility of the dataset. We strongly encourage including annotations where applicable, especially when presenting data derived from sequenced genomes.

• Linked Phenotype and Genotype Data for Human Subjects:

These should be submitted to a publicly accessible repository with appropriate access controls. Any restrictions on data access for sensitive information (such as electronic medical records, forensic data, and personal data from vulnerable populations) must include an explanation of the nature of the restrictions, the reasons for them, and the specific conditions under which the data can be accessed or reused.

• Gene Expression Data:

Data derived from microarray studies must comply with MIAME standards.

Publication of Clinical Datasets

For datasets containing clinical data, authors have an ethical and legal obligation to respect participants’ privacy rights and protect their identities. Ideally, authors should obtain informed consent from participants to publish the dataset at the time of recruitment for the study or trial. If this is not possible, authors must demonstrate that the publication of such data does not compromise anonymity or confidentiality and does not violate local data protection laws for the dataset to be considered for publication. Authors must assess whether the dataset contains any direct or indirect identifiers and consult their local ethics committee or another appropriate authority before submission if there is any possibility that participants may not remain fully anonymous. Authors must indicate in their manuscript upon submission whether informed consent was obtained for the publication of patient data. If informed consent was not obtained, authors must provide the reason for this and specify which body was consulted in preparing the dataset.

Software and Code

Any previously unreported software application or custom code described in the manuscript must be available for testing by editors and reviewers in a manner that preserves their anonymity. The manuscript should include a description in the Availability of Data and Materials section detailing how editors and reviewers can access the unreported software application or custom code. This section should provide a link to the most recent version of your software or code (e.g., Zenodo or Code Ocean) as well as the archived version referenced in the manuscript. The software or code should be stored in an appropriate repository with a digital object identifier (DOI) or unique identifier. For software hosted on GitHub, we recommend using Zenodo for archiving. If published, the software application/tool should be readily available to any scientist wishing to use it for non-commercial purposes without restrictions, such as the need for a material transfer agreement. If the implementation is not made freely available, the manuscript should focus on developing the underlying method and refrain from discussing the tool in detail.

Discipline-Specific, Community-Recognized Repositories

Data should be submitted to discipline-specific, community-recognized repositories whenever possible. For more information, please see our contact us.

Availability of Research Materials

The submission of a manuscript to a Gleam Publishing journal implies that any unique materials described within the manuscript will be freely available to scientists wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes without breaching participant confidentiality. Research materials include uniquely generated resources, such as strains, tools, chemical compounds, antibodies, cell lines, and mutant lines.

Requesting a reasonable payment to cover distribution costs is acceptable, and reagents may be obtained through commercial or non-commercial third-party providers.

For biological materials, such as mutant strains and cell lines, Gleam Publishing encourages authors to use established public repositories whenever possible. Permanent identifiers and/or accession numbers for these resources should be listed in the manuscript. Any restrictions on the availability of materials, including instances where materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, must be clearly stated in the paper.

For studies in which new research materials have been generated, Gleam Publishing encourages the inclusion of the following statement in the “Availability of Data and Materials” section:

[REAGENTS/TOOLS/MATERIALS] generated in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Availability of Data and Materials Statements

All authors must include an “Availability of Data and Materials” section in their manuscript detailing where the data supporting their findings can be accessed. If your data cannot be shared openly, please include a statement to that effect and provide an explanation for the restrictions. In some journals, editors may decline further consideration of the manuscript after evaluation if the restrictions are unduly prohibitive.

Gleam Publishing encourages data availability statements for manuscripts reporting clinical trial data to adhere to the standards set out in the ICMJE recommendations on clinical trial data sharing. We suggest including the following information:

Whether individual de-identified participant data (including data dictionaries) will be shared; “undecided” is not an acceptable answer. Additionally, specify which particular data will be shared, whether any related documents (e.g., study protocol and statistical analysis plan) will be available, when the data becomes accessible, and for what duration. Furthermore, outline the access criteria for sharing the data, including to whom it will be shared, the types of analyses permitted, and the mechanisms for access.

The availability statements for data and materials can take various forms or a combination of several if required for multiple datasets.

Data Citation

Gleam Publishing endorses the Force 11 Data Citation Principles and mandates that all publicly available datasets be fully referenced in the reference list, including an accession number or a unique identifier, such as a DOI. Citations of datasets in the reference list should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and adhere to the journal’s citation style. Dataset identifiers, including DOIs, must be expressed as full URLs.

Example of an “Availability of Data and Materials” statement:

The data described in this article can be freely and openly accessed at Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J9EUZU [1].

With the data cited in the reference list as

[1] Correndo AA, Moro Rosso LH, Ciampitti IA. Agrometeorological data using R-software. Harvard Dataverse. 2021. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/J9EUZU.

Post-Publication Access to Data

Gleam Publishing journals mandate that all materials referenced in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, be made freely available post-publication to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes, without restrictions, and without breaching participant confidentiality. After publication, authors must comply with the data availability statement included in the manuscript and ensure that the data is available to any reader as indicated. For datasets where sharing data is the community norm, Gleam Publishing expects that all datasets upon which the paper’s conclusions are based be made available to readers through community-accepted repositories linked to the manuscript via permanent identifiers. If the original data cannot be produced, the editor may investigate further and reserve the right to contact the relevant institution or funding body. In cases of published articles, the inability to access the requested data may lead to retraction.

Third-Party Data and Analysis

When a third party is used to generate or analyze part or all of the data presented in the study, this must be clearly stated in the “Methods” and/or “Availability of Data and Materials” sections. The corresponding author is responsible for all data presented in the published manuscript (for more information, refer to the roles and responsibilities of the corresponding author under “Authorship”). If data obtained from third parties cannot be made available, the restrictions should be explicitly stated in the data availability statement. Authors must make data available for peer review purposes, if requested by reviewers, in accordance with the terms of a data use agreement and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

Standards of Reporting

Back to top

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. Requests for new gene symbols should be submitted here, and any inquiries regarding gene nomenclature can be directed here. While alternative gene aliases that are commonly used may also be reported, they should not be used independently in place of the HGNC symbol. Nomenclature committees for other species are listed here.

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

Back to top

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. Further helpful information provided by Sandra Knapp et al. can be found here.

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. Authors will have the opportunity to update ZooBank with the final citation following publication—further helpful information from Frank-T. Krell is available here.

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

Back to top

Gleam Publishing requires authors to declare all competing interests concerning their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a “competing interests” section at the end, listing all competing interests (both financial and non-financial). If authors have no competing interests, the statement should read, “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests.” The editor may request further information relating to competing interests.

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?

Competing interests can be categorized as either financial or non-financial. A competing interest arises when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by, or perceived to be influenced by, their personal or financial relationships with other people or organizations. Authors are required to disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests that could lead to embarrassment if made public after the publication of the manuscript.

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.

The matters that require disclosure are outlined as follows:

• Employment/Leadership Position/Advisory Role: 1,000,000 yen or more annually
• Stock Ownership or Options: Profit of 1,000,000 yen or more annually, or ownership of 5% or more of the total shares
• Patent Royalties/Licensing Fees: 1,000,000 yen or more annually
• Honoraria (e.g., lecture fees): 500,000 yen or more annually
• Fees for Promotional Materials (e.g., manuscript fee): 500,000 yen or more annually
• Research Funding: 5,000,000 yen or more annually
• Others (e.g., trips, travel, or gifts not related to research): 50,000 yen or more annually

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. While some editors may be financially incentivized to promote journal growth, we maintain transparency in our internal policies and individual contracts, emphasizing that growth should be achieved by ensuring submissions of sufficient quality and never by compromising editorial standards.

Authorship

Back to top

Authorship acknowledges a researcher’s contributions to a study and entails accountability. Authors are expected to fulfill the following criteria (adapted from McNutt et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb 2018, 201715374; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115; licensed under CC BY 4.0):

Each author is expected to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data, the creation of new software used in the work, or to have drafted the work or made substantial revisions to it. Additionally, authors must have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves their contribution to the study) and agreed to be personally accountable for their contributions. They are also responsible for ensuring that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work—regardless of their personal involvement—are appropriately investigated, resolved, and documented in the literature.

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.

Any changes to the author list after submission, including alterations in the order of authors or the addition or deletion of authors, must be approved by all authors. Additionally, a change of authorship form must be completed. Once a manuscript has been accepted, changes in authorship—such as adding or deleting authors, changing corresponding authors, or altering the sequence of authors—are not permitted.

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)

Back to top

AI Authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently meet our authorship criteria. Notably, the attribution of authorship carries accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. The use of an LLM should be adequately documented in the Methods section (or, if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative section) of the manuscript.

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.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors’ decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily based on their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods relevant to the work they are evaluating. This expertise is both invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and perspectives expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Additionally, manuscripts may contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be disclosed outside the peer review process. For these reasons, while Gleam Publishing is exploring the provision of safe AI tools for peer reviewers, we ask that they refrain from uploading manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any aspect of the evaluation of the claims presented in the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, we request that peer reviewers transparently declare the use of such tools in their peer review reports.

Citations

Back to top

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

Back to top

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

Back to top

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

1. Abridged articles

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

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

Published abstracts should be cited appropriately.

3. Co-publication in multiple journals

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

4. Cochrane systematic reviews

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

5. Datasets in public or restricted access repositories

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

6. Figures and tables in non-research articles

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

7. HTA reports

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

8. 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.

9. Preprint servers, including authors’ personal and institutional websites

Yes, this does not constitute a previous publication.

10. Study protocol published

Yes, published protocols should be cited.

11. Summary of results in clinical trial registries

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

12. 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

Back to top

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 get in touch with the press office.

Text Recycling

Back to top

Authors should be aware that the replication of text from their previous publications is considered text recycling (also referred to as self-plagiarism) and, in some cases, may be deemed unacceptable. When overlap with authors’ prior publications is necessary or unavoidable, any duplication must be reported transparently and adequately attributed in compliance with copyright requirements. In collaboration with COPE, Gleam Publishing has created Guidelines for Editors on How to Deal with Text Recycling, which provide detailed information on when text recycling is or is not considered acceptable. If a manuscript contains text that has been published elsewhere, authors should notify the editor of this upon submission.

Peer Review

Back to top

All research articles and most other types of articles published in Gleam Publishing journals undergo a thorough peer review process. This usually involves two independent reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review procedures; for example, some journals operate an open review system, while others employ a closed review system.

All submissions to Gleam Publishing journals are assessed by an editor, who determines their suitability for peer review. If an editor is listed as an author or has any other competing interest related to a specific manuscript, another member of the editorial board will be assigned to oversee the peer review process. Submissions deemed suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review to qualified independent experts identified by the handling editor. Editors will make decisions based on the reviewers’ reports, and authors will receive these reports along with the editorial decision regarding their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the rejection of the manuscript.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors’ decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily based on their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods relevant to the work they are evaluating. This expertise is both invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and perspectives expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Additionally, manuscripts may contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be disclosed outside the peer review process. For these reasons, while Gleam Publishing is exploring the provision of safe AI tools for peer reviewers, we ask that they refrain from uploading manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any aspect of the evaluation of the claims presented in the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, we request that peer reviewers transparently declare the use of such tools in their peer review reports.

Open Peer Review

The reviewers’ names are included in the peer review reports for journals operating an open peer review process. Additionally, if the manuscript is published, the named reports are made available online alongside the article. However, there may be instances where information from the pre-publication history is not accessible for a specific article.

Authors will be aware of the reviewers’ names during the peer review process and vice versa. However, direct communication between authors and reviewers is prohibited. Any correspondence between authors and reviewers during or after the review process must be conducted through the journal editors.

Transparent Peer Review

For journals that implement a transparent peer review process, if a manuscript is accepted for publication, the peer review reports are made available online alongside the article. However, the reviewer’s name is not disclosed. Occasionally, certain information from the pre-publication history may not be accessible for a specific article.

Closed Peer Review

Most journals operate a closed peer-review process. Reviewers remain anonymous, and the pre-publication history of each article is not made publicly available online.

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 individuals from serving as peer reviewers; however, they must explain the reasons in their cover letter upon submission. It is advisable for authors to limit the number of exclusions, as excessive requests may hinder the peer review process. Please note that the editor may choose to invite excluded peer reviewers.

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

To support an efficient and thorough peer review process, we aim to reduce the instances in which a manuscript is re-reviewed following its rejection from a Gleam Publishing journal. This approach seeks to speed up the publication process and alleviate the burden on peer reviewers. If a manuscript does not align with the interest criteria of a specific Gleam Publishing journal but is deemed sound and relevant for another Gleam Publishing journal, we offer authors the option to transfer the manuscript along with the reviewer reports to the alternative journal.

Editors may share manuscripts with editors of other Gleam Publishing journals before contacting authors to assess the suitability of transferring the manuscript to another journal. Authors who do not wish for their manuscript to be shared with other Gleam Publishing journals should indicate this preference in their cover letter upon submission. Reviewers who do not want their report to be shared with another Gleam Publishing journal should specify this in the confidential section of their report. The transfer of a manuscript does not imply that the receiving journal will automatically accept it. Occasionally, the editor of the receiving journal may need to conduct a peer review and/or reject the manuscript if it is deemed unsuitable.

If a manuscript is transferred to and published in a journal that employs open peer review, we will, wherever possible, make the reviewers’ reports available through the pre-publication history of the article (see “Open peer review” above). However, there may be instances where this is not possible, such as when the manuscript has undergone peer review in a closed journal. While we will encourage reviewers to share their reports, those providing feedback for closed peer-review journals may choose to uphold their confidentiality and anonymity.

In cases where a manuscript is initially reviewed in an open peer-review journal and is subsequently transferred to a closed peer-review journal for publication, the reviews will not be published alongside the article.

Between Gleam Publishing and Other Publishers/Third Parties

Gleam Publishing supports innovations in peer review that improve efficiency and save time and effort for peer reviewers. Some journals under Gleam Publishing will consider manuscripts submitted by other publishers. We are also open to considering manuscripts that have been reviewed by third parties. However, submitting a manuscript accompanied by reviewer reports from another journal or an independent review service does not guarantee automatic acceptance by the receiving journal; additional peer review may be required.

Confidentiality

Back to top

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.

Gleam Publishing will not share manuscripts with third parties outside of the organization except in cases of suspected misconduct. See our Misconduct Policy for further information. Manuscripts may be shared with other editors at Gleam Publishing unless authors indicate upon submission that they do not wish for their manuscript to be forwarded beyond the journal to which they submitted. See the Portability of Peer Review for more information.

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

Back to top

Gleam Publishing takes all allegations of potential misconduct seriously. As members of COPE, all Gleam Publishing journals adhere to the COPE guidelines, which outline the procedures for addressing cases of suspected misconduct.

In instances of suspected research or publication misconduct, it may be necessary for the editor to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, such as the author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s). Gleam Publishing may also seek guidance from COPE and discuss anonymized cases in the COPE Forum. Additionally, the editor may consult Gleam Publishing’s Research Integrity Group.

A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author’s and article’s bibliographic record.

Research Misconduct

All research involving humans (including human data and materials) and animals must be conducted within an appropriate ethical framework (see our Ethics Policy for further information). If there is suspicion that research has not been conducted within a proper ethical framework, the editor may reject the manuscript and may inform third parties, such as the author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

Articles may be retracted in cases of proven research misconduct involving published works or when the scientific integrity of the article is significantly undermined. See our Retraction Policy for further information.

Data Falsification and Fabrication

Data falsification involves manipulating research data to give a false impression. This can include altering images, removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, and changing, adding, or omitting data points. Data fabrication, on the other hand, refers to the invention of research findings.

Any questions regarding data integrity that arise during or after the peer review process will be referred to the editor. The editor may request (anonymized) underlying study data from the author(s) for inspection or verification. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in the case of a published article, retracted. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)’ institution(s).

Publication Misconduct

As members of COPE, all journals published by Gleam Publishing will follow the COPE guidelines, which outline how to deal with cases of potential publication misconduct.

Plagiarism

Gleam Publishing is a member of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative and uses plagiarism detection software. In the event that plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Corrections and Retractions

Back to top

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

Changes to published articles that affect their interpretation and conclusions but do not fully invalidate the articles will be corrected at the editor(s)’ discretion via the publication of a correction that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article.

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.

Retractions

On rare occasions, when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary to retract published articles. Gleam Publishing will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retraction notices are indexed and linked bidirectionally to the original article. The original article is watermarked as retracted, and the title is amended with the prefix “Retracted article.”

Editorial Expressions of Concern

When an editor becomes aware of serious concerns regarding the interpretation or conclusions of a published article, they may choose to issue a statement alerting the readership. Scenarios in which editorial expressions of concern may be published include prolonged investigations of highly complex cases and situations where the concerns may significantly and immediately impact public health or public policy. An editorial expression of concern may be superseded by a subsequent correction or retraction but will remain part of the permanent published record.

Removal of Published Content

In exceptional circumstances, 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

Back to top

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.

Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision should submit a formal appeal letter to the journal by contacting the editorial office. Please include the manuscript tracking number in the subject line of the email and send the appeal letter to contact@gleampub.com.

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 our processes or publication ethics will initially be handled by the editor responsible for the journal. If the editor is the subject of the complaint, please contact the editorial and publishing management team via email 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

Back to top

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.

¹ Adapted from Springer Nature Editorial Policies