• Editorial policies

    Table of contents


    Ethics and Consent

    Research Involving Animals

    Research Involving Plants

    Research Involving Cell Lines

    Sex and Gender in Research

    Consent for Publication

    Dual Use Research of Concern

    Trial Registration

    Availability of Data and Materials

    Standards of Reporting

    Describing New Taxa

    Conflict of Interests


    Preprint Sharing and Citations

    Multiple, Duplicate, Concurrent Publication

    Text Recycling

    Plagiarism and Other Fraud

    Peer Review


    Corrections and Retractions

    Appeals and Complaints

    Special Issues

    Promoting Equity, Diversity and Inclusiveness within AUDT

    Borders and Territories


    The entire publication process from submission, review, to publication in AUDT, adheres to the best practices such as those outlined by these organizations:

    Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

    the International Committee of medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

    World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

    Ethics and Consent

    All research involving human participants, human material, or human data must align with the principles in the Declaration of Helsinki and receive approval from a relevant ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. In cases where a study has been granted an exemption from obtaining ethics approval, the manuscript should detail this, including the name of the granting ethics committee. Supplementary information and documentation supporting these processes will be furnished to the Editor upon request. In case of clinical trials, the trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration should be included in the manuscript. Suitable publicly available registries are those listed on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

    Retrospective ethics approval

    For clinical trials that have not been registered prospectively, AUDT encourages retrospective registration to ensure the complete publication of all results. In such cases, the TRN, date of registration and the words ‘retrospectively registered’ should be included in the manuscript.

    New clinical tools and procedures

    Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need, and should obtain ethics approval and informed patient consent for participation in the study.

    Privacy and confidentiality

    AUDT follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which emphasizes that patients and study participants have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent.

    Consent to participate

    For all research involving human participants, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example, unconscious patients) where there is the potential for coercion (for example prisoners) or where consent may not have been fully informed, manuscripts will be considered at the editor’s discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny. Consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained. Documentary evidence of consent must be supplied if requested.

    Research Involving Animals

    Experimental research involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must adhere to institutional, national, or international guidelines and, when available, should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The manuscript should include a statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines, such as the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe, and/or ethical approval. This requirement extends to field studies and other non-experimental research on animals. The statement should include the name of the ethics committee and the reference number, where appropriate.

    Any euthanasia or anesthesia methods must be described in detail, including information about the agents used. These procedures must be carried out in accordance with applicable veterinary guidelines, such as the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020).

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

    The Editor will take into consideration 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. When rodents are used as in vivo cancer models, the tumor burden should not exceed the recommendations of the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines.

    Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript.

    Research Involving Plants

    Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national or international guidelines (e.g., IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora). Field studies should be conducted in accordance with local legislation, and the manuscript should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licenses.

    Voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection providing access to deposited material. Information on the voucher specimen, and who identified it, must be included in the manuscript.

    Research Involving Cell Lines

    Manuscripts that report experiments involving the use of human embryos and gametes, human embryonic stem cells and related materials, and clinical applications of stem cells must include confirmation that all experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

    For de novo (new) cell lines (including those given to the researchers as a gift, authors must follow our policies for human subjects research or animal research, as appropriate):

    (1) Provide the details of the institutional review board or ethics committee approval.

    (2) If the line is of human origin, please provide written informed consent.

    For established cell lines:

    (1) Confirm that mycoplasma testing has been done for the cell lines used.

    (2) Confirm that the cell lines used have been authenticated and state what method was used for the authentication.

    (3) Provide the source, supplier and, if available, catalogue number of all the cell lines used in the study.

    (4) Furthermore, information regarding misidentified or cross-contaminated cell lines must be provided and cross-checked from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee and ExPASy Cellosaurus databases in order to exclude their contamination with other cell lines or their incorrect identification.

    (5) And please note that if a cell line has previously been reported to be contaminated or misidentified, an STR profile of the cell line used in the study must be available for evaluation by the journal’s editor.

    Sex and Gender in Research

    We strongly encourage our authors to adhere to the 'Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines' and incorporate sex and gender considerations where relevant. It is crucial to use the terms 'sex' (a biological attribute) and 'gender' (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) with precision to prevent confusion. Article titles and/or abstracts should explicitly indicate the applicable sex(es) of the study. Authors are urged to delineate in the background whether sex and/or gender differences may be anticipated, report how sex and/or gender were considered in the study design, provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender when pertinent, and discuss corresponding results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, authors should articulate the rationale in the Discussion section. We recommend that authors consult the full guidelines before submitting their work.

    Consent for Publication

    Respecting patients' privacy is paramount and should not be compromised without informed consent. Manuscripts must abstain from incorporating identifying information—such as names, initials, date of birth, or hospital numbers—unless essential for scientific purposes, with explicit written informed consent from the patient (or parent/guardian) for publication. The manuscript should include a statement affirming that the patient, or their authorized representative (parent, guardian, or next of kin in the case of deceased patients), has provided written informed consent for the publication of associated data and accompanying images. The consent form that will be treated confidentially must be made available to the Editor if requested.

    In cases where a report or study involves details, personal information, or images that could potentially identify an individual, publication consent must be secured from the individual or their designated representative—parent, guardian, or next of kin. The manuscript should explicitly state the acquisition of consent. Authors should disclose to patients that personally identifiable material would be available via the Internet under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 as well as in print after publication.

    When dealing with datasets comprising clinical data, authors are entrusted with both ethical and legal responsibilities to uphold participant privacy and safeguard their identities. Ideally, authors should secure informed consent for dataset publication from participants during the trial's recruitment phase. If obtaining consent at that juncture is unfeasible, authors must convincingly demonstrate that publishing the data won't compromise anonymity, confidentiality, or breach local data protection laws before considering its publication. Authors need to assess datasets for direct or indirect identifiers and, if there's a potential risk of insufficient anonymization, consult with the local ethics committee or other pertinent bodies before manuscript submission. At the time of submission, authors are required to explicitly state whether informed consent has been obtained for the publication of patient data.

    Dual Use Research of Concern

    Some manuscripts contain information with the potential for misuse, posing risks to public health, safety, and the environment. To merit publication, the benefits of this information must outweigh the associated risks for the research community, society, or public health. We reserve the right to seek expert advice and may employ specialized peer reviews to assess dual-use risks. In cases where the risk outweighs potential benefits, publication will be refused, and existing content may be corrected, withdrawn, or removed.

    Researchers are expected to adhere to institutional, funder, and national regulations. Awareness of dual-use issues, such as biosecurity, nuclear, and chemical threats, is crucial, and steps should be taken to minimize the potential misuse of research results. Authors should transparently disclose if their research falls under the dual-use category, including details on the approving agency and reference number of the regulatory approval. If the study reports materials with potential harm beyond the laboratory, the manuscript should outline appropriate containment procedures, such as biosafety measures.

    Trial Registration

    AUDT supports initiatives to improve reporting of clinical trials. This includes prospective registration of clinical trials in suitable publicly available databases. In line with ICMJE guidelines, AUDT requires registration of all clinical trials that are reported in manuscripts submitted to its journals.

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

    For clinical trials that have not been registered prospectively, AUDT encourages retrospective registration to ensure the complete publication of all results. In such cases, the TRN, date of registration and the words ‘retrospectively registered’ should be included in the manuscript.

    Registration of systematic reviews

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

    Availability of Data and Materials

    For AUDT, it is strongly encouraged that all datasets on which the conclusions of a manuscript depend should be available to readers, unless they are already provided as part of the submitted article. Where datasets are included in the study, authors should include an “Availability of data and materials” section in the article, stating where the data supporting their findings may be found. Authors who do not wish to share their data must state this fact, and also provide an explanation as to why the data are unavailable.

    Data availability statements can take one of the following forms (or a combination of more than one if required for multiple datasets):

    The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS]

    The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

    The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

    The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party name] but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of [third party name].

    Not applicable. If your manuscript does not contain any data, please state 'Not applicable' in this section.

    Authors are encouraged to deposit their datasets in publicly available repositories, where available and appropriate. Publicly available datasets must be fully referenced in the reference list with an accession number or unique identifier such as a digital object identifier (DOI). We leave the selection of the repository is left entirely to the author’s discretion, although note that the data must be freely available to readers.

    Special considerations

    Genomics and transcriptomics datasets: When submitting genomic and transcriptomics datasets, AUDT strongly encourages the inclusion of comprehensive metadata to facilitate dataset reproduction. We particularly emphasize the importance of providing annotations, especially in cases involving data from unsequenced genomes.

    Linked phenotype and genotype data for human subjects: Datasets should be submitted to a publicly accessible repository with appropriate access controls. Any limitations on data access, particularly for sensitive data such as electronic medical records, forensic data, and personal information from vulnerable populations, must be clearly explained. Authors should provide details regarding the nature and reasons for these restrictions, as well as the conditions under which the data can be accessed or reused.

    Gene expression data: Dates derived from microarray studies, must adhere to MIAME standards for compliance.

    DNA and RNA sequences: The deposition of novel DNA and RNA sequences, as well as novel genome assembly data, is mandated. We strongly encourage the deposition of all DNA and RNA sequences. For novel DNA sequence, novel RNA sequence, and novel genome assembly data, deposition is required in repositories affiliated with the International Nucleotide Sequence Collaboration (INSDC), or those actively working towards INSDC inclusion. When publishing reference genomes, the assembly should be made available along with the raw sequence reads. Even for short stretches of novel sequence information, such as epitopes, functional domains, genetic markers, or haplotypes, sequences must be deposited. We encourage the supplementation of short novel sequences with surrounding sequence information to provide context. Additionally, the sequences of all small RNA probes central to the paper's conclusions must be provided.

    Publication of clinical datasets

    Authors handling datasets containing clinical data bear an ethical and legal responsibility to safeguard participants' rights to privacy and protect their identity. Ideally, authors should secure informed consent for the publication of the dataset from participants at the point of recruitment to the study or trial. In instances where obtaining consent at that stage is not feasible, authors must convincingly demonstrate that the publication of such data upholds anonymity, confidentiality, and adheres to local data protection laws for the dataset to be considered for publication. Authors must carefully assess whether the dataset contains any direct or indirect identifiers (for further information, refer to [link]), and if there is any potential that participants may not remain fully anonymous, authors must consult their local ethics committee or another appropriate body before submission. Upon manuscript submission, authors are required to explicitly state 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 the preparation of the dataset.

    Software and code

    Any previously unreported software application or custom code mentioned in the manuscript should be accessible for testing by editors and reviewers, ensuring the preservation of their anonymity. The 'Availability of Data and Materials' section in the manuscript should provide a description of how editors and reviewers can access the unreported software application or custom code. This section should include links to the most recent version of your software or code (e.g., Zenodo or Code Ocean) and to the archived version referenced in the manuscript. The software or code should be archived in a suitable repository with a DOI or other unique identifier. If the software application/tool is published, it should be readily available to any scientist 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 clearly on the development of the underlying method and refrain from discussing the tool in deta.

    Availability of research materials

    When submitting a manuscript to a AUDT, it is understood that any unique materials described in the manuscript will be made freely available to scientists for non-commercial purposes, with due consideration for participant confidentiality. These research materials encompass uniquely generated resources, such as strains, tools, chemical compounds, antibodies, cell lines, or mutant lines.

    Reasonable payment to cover distribution costs is deemed acceptable, and reagents may be made available through commercial or non-commercial third-party providers. For biological materials like mutant strains and cell lines, AUDT encourages authors to utilize established public repositories when possible, and the manuscript should include persistent identifiers and/or accession numbers for such resources. Any constraints on material availability, including distribution by a for-profit company, must be transparently stated in the paper.

    In studies involving the generation of new research materials, AUDT encourages authors to include 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.

    Data citation

    AUDT aligns with the Force 11 Data Citation Principles, mandating the comprehensive referencing of all publicly available datasets in the reference list. Each dataset should be accompanied by an accession number or a unique identifier like a digital object identifier (DOI). When cited in the reference list, dataset citations should adhere to the minimum information guidelines outlined by DataCite, following the journal's style. Dataset identifiers, including DOIs, must be presented as complete URLs.

    Post-publication access of data

    AUDT requires the post-publication availability of all materials, including pertinent raw data, for non-commercial use by any scientist without restrictions and without compromising participant confidentiality. Authors are obliged to adhere to the data availability statement in the manuscript, ensuring accessibility to readers as specified. For datasets reliant on community norms for sharing, AUDT expects authors to make them accessible via recognized repositories linked to the manuscript through permanent identifiers. If original data cannot be provided, the Editor reserves the right to contact the institution or funding body. Failure to grant access to requested data for published articles may result in retraction.

    Third party data and analysis

    When employing a third party for generating or analyzing data in the study, it must be explicitly mentioned in the 'Methods' and/or 'Availability of Data and Materials' sections. The corresponding author bears responsibility for all data presented in the published manuscript. In cases where data from third parties cannot be shared, the restrictions should be explicitly outlined in the data availability statement. Authors are obligated to provide data for peer review purposes upon reviewer request, adhering to data use agreements and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

    Standards of Reporting

    AUDT supports thorough and transparent reporting in biomedical and biological research. Authors are encouraged to complete the checklist below before the peer review process, making it accessible to both Editors and reviewers.

    Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT)

    Protocols for randomized controlled protocols (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)

    Pre-clinical animal studies (ARRIVE)

    Statistics checklists for editors and reviewers to use when evaluating the statistics in manuscripts:

    Life Sciences journals

    Medical journals

    Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science journals

    Statistical methods

    Authors should provide information on the statistical methods and measures used in their research, including the name, version and supplier of the statistical software used, and the p-value considered to be significant. This should encompass a justification for the appropriateness of the chosen statistical test, with reference to the SAMPL guidelines for additional details. Reviewers will assess the statistical methods, and if deemed necessary, the manuscript may undergo specialist statistical review.

    Digital image integrity

    In the realm of scientific exploration, image processing becomes an inevitable tool in certain experiments, fields, and techniques. However, the paramount principle remains unwavering: the final image showcased in a published article must be a faithful reflection of the original data, adhering meticulously to community standards. The guidelines outlined below serve as a compass, facilitating precise data presentation. Authors are urged to tread with care during data acquisition, ensuring a vigilant stance to forestall any inadvertent misrepresentation of the collected data.

    Authors should list all image acquisition tools and image processing software packages used and indicate the specific version of the software. If data are processed with custom code, this should be fully described and deposited in a community repository. All image acquisition settings and processing operations should be fully described in the methods.

    When crafting figures for publication, strict adherence to the following guidelines is imperative:

    Image integrity: Avoid combining images from different times or locations unless explicitly stated as time-averaged data or a time-lapse sequence. If juxtaposition is necessary, clearly demarcate borders in the figure and elaborate in the legend.

    Manipulation tools: Refrain from using touch-up tools, such as cloning or healing tools in Photoshop, which obscure manipulations deliberately.

    Processing precision: Image processing, such as adjusting brightness and contrast, is permissible only if uniformly applied across the entire image and equally to control samples. Contrast adjustments should not lead to data disappearance. Any manipulation should steer clear of emphasizing one region at the expense of others, avoiding biased threshold settings that could distort the overall representation.

    Submission of original images: Authors should be prepared to furnish original, unprocessed images upon request, reinforcing a commitment to transparency and the scrutiny of scientific integrity.

    Electrophoretic gels and blots

    In the main paper, the presentation of cropped gels and blots is permissible when it enhances clarity and conciseness. However, it's imperative to disclose any cropping in the figure legend. Uncropped original gels or blots must be included. The full-length, unaltered version should be included in the supplementary files, ensuring a comprehensive and transparent documentation of the experimental data.

    Quantitative comparisons: Discourage quantitative comparisons between samples on different gels/blots. If unavoidable, the figure legend should explicitly state that these samples originate from the same experiment and were processed in parallel. Vertically sliced images should feature a clear separation or a black line to denote the boundary between non-adjacent lanes.

    Loading controls: Ensure that loading controls are run on the same blot, maintaining experimental integrity.

    Cropped gel integrity: When incorporating cropped gels in the paper, retain crucial bands to preserve data significance.

    Image contrast caution: Avoid high-contrast gels and blots, as overexposure may obscure additional bands. Strive for exposures with gray backgrounds. If high contrast is unavoidable, present multiple exposures in Supplementary Information. Immunoblots should be bordered by a black line if the background is faint.

    Quantitative rigor: For quantitative comparisons, employ reagents, controls, and imaging methods with linear signal ranges, ensuring the accuracy of the data presented.


    Authors are expected to be ready to furnish the journal with original data. It's crucial to maintain the integrity of cellular representation—cells from various fields should not be juxtaposed in a single field. Instead, multiple supporting fields of cells should be thoughtfully presented as Supplementary Information, allowing for a comprehensive and transparent exploration of the experimental findings.

    Precision in image processing is paramount, and adjustments should be applied uniformly to the entire image. Avoid manipulations like threshold manipulation, signal range expansion or contraction, and altering of high signals. If 'pseudo-colouring' or nonlinear adjustments like 'gamma changes' are employed, full disclosure is essential. In cases where adjustments are made to individual color channels in 'merged' images, this should be explicitly noted in the figure legend.

    In the methods section, provide explicit details on the equipment used, including microscopes, objective lenses, cameras, detectors, filter models, and batch numbers. While acknowledging instrument variability, list equipment settings for critical measurements. Specify the acquisition software and name the processing software used, detailing manipulations such as deconvolution, three-dimensional reconstructions, surface and volume rendering, 'gamma changes,' filtering, thresholding, and projection.

    Authors should state the measured resolution at which an image was acquired. Any downstream processing or averaging that enhances image resolution should be disclosed, ensuring a clear understanding of the data's fidelity.

    Describing New Taxa

    Virus names

    When it comes to proposing new virus names, meticulous adherence to the guidelines set forth by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) in the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature is non-negotiable. Any aspirations for novel virus taxa should be diligently submitted to the pertinent Study Group of the ICTV for thorough consideration and, if deemed fit, integration into the lexicon of viral taxonomy.

    Bacterial names

    In alignment with the regulations outlined in the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes (ICNP), the electronic publication of new prokaryotic names is permissible. However, to meet the criteria set by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP) for valid publication, authors are required to submit the final, published article along with certificates of deposition for the type strain to the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) editorial office. The type strain, intended for unrestricted distribution, must be deposited in a minimum of two internationally recognized, publicly accessible culture collections situated in different countries. Upon submission, the List Editor will review the material, and names that adhere to all ICNP rules will be included on a subsequent Validation List in the order they are received. This process validates the publication of the names, ensuring compliance with the established standards of the ICNP.

    Zoological names

    Since January 2012, electronic publication of zoological names is valid under specific conditions outlined by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Manuscripts introducing new taxon names must adhere to guidelines. To ensure validation, register the new name and associated article with ZooBank, incorporating its unique identifier in the published article. Authors can later update ZooBank with the final citation post-publication.

    Algal, fungal, and botanical names

    Since January 2012, the electronic publication of algal, fungal, and botanical names has gained recognition as a valid form of dissemination. Manuscripts introducing new taxon names or other nomenclatural acts must adhere to the guidelines set forth by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

    Conflict of Interests

    Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare whether there are any competing interests with regard to the publication of a study. Authors will declare the COI in every published paper and the name of Academic Editors who make the final decision will be appeared in the published papers. Also the editors and reviewers should declare the COI to editorial office.

    Competing interests encompass a broad spectrum, arising when authors' data interpretation or information presentation may be influenced by personal, political, academic, or financial relationships. This includes reimbursements, personal beliefs, and factors such as competing patents, grants, funding, employment, or strong ethical convictions. Declarations are essential, as these influences can impact the objectivity and motivation behind data interpretation, potentially affecting the integrity of the study and even unrelated studies within the same journal. It's prudent to explicitly state competing interests related to public funding sources like government agencies or charitable institutions. This commitment to transparency safeguards the reliability and integrity of the science presented.

    Upon submission, authors are required to provide full disclosure of competing interests in both the cover letter and manuscript, even if they believe it hasn't influenced their work. If no conflict exists, a clear statement should be included in the manuscript: 'Competing interests: the authors declare that they have no competing interests,' with all authors confirming its accuracy. Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for conflict-of-interest statements is essential. In the event of discovering important undeclared conflicts post-publication, a reassessment of the article and its peer review process will occur, and corrections or retractions will be made as deemed appropriate by the editors.

    External peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the review process. To ensure unbiased assessments, reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could potentially influence their opinions. If a conflict is identified, reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating the manuscript. In cases where conflicts are declared, the journal editor will assess whether the reviewer's comments should be considered or interpreted in light of the disclosure. To uphold transparency, AUDT stipulates that editorial staff or editors should not handle the processing of their own academic work. If editors or members of the Editorial Board submit their manuscripts for publication, an alternative set of Board members will manage the peer review process. Submissions will undergo evaluation by at least two independent external reviewers, and decisions will be made by Editorial Board Members without conflicts of interest with the author. This practice safeguards the impartiality and credibility of the editorial and review processes.

    Guest Editors are entrusted with the responsibility of impartial assessment. To uphold objectivity, they should avoid conflicts of interest with authors, such as those arising from the same institution or close collaboration. In instances where conflicts exist, the final acceptance decisions for submitted papers will be made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board. This practice ensures that the evaluation process remains fair, transparent, and free from undue influence, maintaining the integrity of the publication standards.

    This section is required for all papers. If there are no interests to declare, please use the following wording: "Given his/her role as [Guest] Editor [in Chief], had no involvement in the peer-review of this article and has no access to information regarding its peer-review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to ".

    Other than research articles, for any non-research articles such as commentaries or Editorials written by editors or members of the Editorial Boards, an impartial editor will be responsible to evaluate the piece and decide whether it should be peer reviewed or not. In case of peer review a process similar to reviweing for original articles will be considered.


    Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. Authors are expected to fulfil the criteria below (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):

    Author contributions

    Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. According to the ICMJE guidelines, to qualify as an author one should have (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met. Transparency about the contributions of authors is encouraged, for example in the form of a CRediT author statement.

    The individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified, and initials should be used to refer to each author’s contribution (e.g., GF, LH and PG designed the research study. LH and PG performed the research. GF and MM provided help and advice on the ELISA experiments. MM analyzed the data. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work). AUDT encourages to use the roles definition of CRediT.

    Corresponding authors

    The corresponding author (or coauthor designee) will serve on behalf of all coauthors as the primary correspondent with the editorial office during the submission and review process. The corresponding author is also responsible for ensuring that the submission adheres to all journal requirements including, but not exclusive to, details of authorship, study ethics and ethics approval, clinical trial registration documents, and conflict of interest declaration. The corresponding author should also be available post-publication to respond to any queries or critiques. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, the AUDT editors should send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.

    Corresponding authors should indicate whether any authors on earlier versions have been removed or new authors added and why. It is incumbent on the corresponding author to ensure that all authors (or group/laboratory leaders in large collaborations) have certified the author list and contribution description: that all authors who deserve to be credited on the manuscript are indeed identified, that no authors are listed who do not deserve authorship credit, and that author contributions, where they are provided, are expressed accurately.

    Any potential authorship disputes brought to the editors’ attention will be handled in line with COPE guidelines.

    Third party submissions

    All manuscripts must be submitted by an author and may not be submitted by a third party.


    All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the ‘Acknowledgment’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. The involvement of scientific (medical) writers or anyone else who assisted with the preparation of the manuscript content should be acknowledged, along with their source of funding, as described in the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines. The role of medical writers should be acknowledged explicitly in the 'Acknowledgment' section as appropriate.

    Authors have responsibility to get written approval by persons named in the acknowledgment section.

    Authorship Change

    Requests to change authors (for example, adding or removing authors, author names, or contributing changes) must be accompanied by a letter signed by all authors stating that they agree to the changes. New authors must also confirm that they fully meet the journal authorship requirements. AUDT will individually inform anyone who is added or removed from the author list.

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

    In accordance with COPE’s stated position on AI tools and ICMJE‘s authorship criteria, artificial intelligence chatbots, such as ChatGPT and similar AI tools based on large language models (LLMs), cannot be listed as an author of a paper.

    When authors employ AI tools in manuscript drafting, image production, graphical elements creation, or data collection and analysis, a commitment to transparency becomes paramount. The disclosure of AI tool utilization is obligatory in both cover letters to editors and within the manuscript, typically situated in either the Methods or Acknowledgments section. Authors bear complete responsibility for their manuscript content, encompassing sections generated by AI tools, and are thus accountable for any potential violations of publication ethics.

    The ultimate determination of the appropriateness or permissibility of AI tool usage within a submitted manuscript lies in the hands of the journal's editors. Specifically, the Editor-in-Chief holds sway over decisions for regular submissions, while Guest Editors preside over Special Issue submissions. In instances of potential conflicts of interest or unique circumstances, an Editorial Board member may be delegated by the Editor-in-Chief to arbitrate such judgments. This hierarchical framework ensures a judicious evaluation of the incorporation of AI tools, safeguarding the integrity of scholarly publications.

    Preprint Sharing and Citations

    Preprint sharing

    AUDT actively support the dissemination of primary research manuscripts through the posting of preprints. Authors are encouraged to share their work on preprint servers of their choosing, on their personal or institutional websites, and engage in open communications with fellow researchers. This extends to both community preprint servers and platforms designed for commenting on preprints.

    Preprints refer to the author's version of a research manuscript before undergoing formal peer review at a journal. Importantly, authors can share preprints at any stage of the peer review process. Posting preprints is not viewed as prior publication and does not impact the consideration of a manuscript at AUDT. The presence of a manuscript on a preprint server does not influence the assessment of the scientific advance made by a study under review at AUDT.

    Authors are required to disclose specific details about the posting of preprints, such as the DOI and licensing terms, when submitting a manuscript to AUDT. This information should be provided either upon submission or at any other relevant stage during the consideration process. After the preprint is formally published, it becomes the author's responsibility to update the preprint record with a publication reference. This reference should include the DOI and a URL link directing readers to the published version of the article on the journal's website.

    Authors have the flexibility to select any license, including Creative Commons licenses, for their preprints. The choice of a Creative Commons license will determine how the preprint can be shared and reused.

    Preprints may be cited in the reference list of articles under consideration at AUDT.

    Authors who post preprints are requested to adhere to our communication policy with the media. When responding to media requests related to a preprint or conference presentation, researchers can provide explanations or clarifications about their work or share contextual information. Importantly, such media coverage will not hinder the editorial handling of the submission. It is advisable for researchers approached by reporters to clearly communicate that the paper has not undergone peer review, the findings are provisional, and the conclusions may be subject to change.


    Research articles and non-research articles (e.g., Opinion, Review and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:

    Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors’ own new ideas or findings) should use a citation.

    Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

    Authors should ensure that their citations are accurate (i.e., they should ensure the citation supports the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make).

    Authors should not cite sources that they have not read.

    AUDT discourage citation manipulations to inappropriately increase the number of citations of themselves, their Friends etc.

    Authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review where possible.

    Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.

    Multiple, Duplicate, Concurrent Publication

    Any manuscript submitted to AUDT must be original and the manuscript, or substantial parts of it, must not be under consideration by any other journal. It is considered unethical to submit an identical manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Multiple submissions of the same paper can damage the reputation of journals if published in more than one journal. Duplicate publications or redundant publications (re-packaging in different words of data already published by the same authors) will be rejected. A flowcharts on dealing with Redundant Publications of COPE.

    Text Recycling

    Authors must be cautious about replicating text from their own prior publications, a practice known as text recycling or self-plagiarism, which is considered unacceptable in certain cases. If unavoidable, authors should transparently report such instances, ensuring proper attribution and adherence to copyright requirements. For more information, refer to guidelines for Editors on how to deal with text recycling. Authors should notify the Editor during submission if the manuscript contains previously published text.

    Plagiarism and Other Fraud

    Authors shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the originality of their work, a critical aspect emphasized during the submission process. To meticulously assess manuscripts, AUDT employs a comprehensive screening approach using iThenticate, alongside title searches in PubMed and Google. This thorough examination aims to identify any instances of previously published material or anomalies. Figures and images submitted are subjected to routine scrutiny to detect potential duplications or irregularities in data. Authors are advised to retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as the Editor may request them to facilitate manuscript evaluation. It is crucial for authors to be aware that the absence of unprocessed data could result in a delay in the manuscript evaluation process until the matter is resolved. This diligence ensures the integrity of the scholarly process and upholds the standards of originality in academic contributions.

    In instances where the journal Editor harbors suspicions of plagiarism or fraudulence within a manuscript, they retain the prerogative to express their concerns to the authors' sponsoring institution and other pertinent bodies. Suspected cases of plagiarism prompt a preliminary investigation following the prescribed protocols outlined in the flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each instance of suspected unethical publishing behavior is thoroughly examined. Upon the detection of plagiarism, the manuscript is unequivocally marked on every page of the PDF. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarism are disqualified from consideration for publication. If, perchance, the paper has already been published, the extent of plagiarism determines whether a formal retraction is warranted. These measures underscore the commitment to maintaining the integrity of scholarly publications and upholding ethical standards in academic discourse.

    No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.

    The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields or exposures, must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure and in figure legend.

    Adjustments of brightness, contrast or color balance may be acceptable if they are applied to every pixel in the image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate or misrepresent any information present in the original, including the background. Non-linear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend.

    Any questions raised during or after the peer review process will be referred to the Editor, who may request the original data from the author(s) for comparison with the prepared figures. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in the case of a published article, retracted. Any case in which the manipulation affects the interpretation of the data will result in rejection or retraction. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)’ institution(s).

    Peer Review

    All research articles and other article types, published in AUDT undergo thorough peer review. This usually involves review by two independent peer reviewers, and AUDT employ ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

    Please Note:

    AI use by peer reviewers: Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools. If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

    Peer reviewers: Authors may suggest potential reviewers if they wish; however, whether or not to consider these reviewers is at the Editor's discretion. Authors should not suggest recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors who wish to suggest peer reviewers can do so in the cover letter and should provide institutional email addresses where possible, or information which will help the Editor to verify the identity of the reviewer (for example an ORCID or Scopus ID). Authors retain the prerogative to request the exclusion of specific individuals as peer reviewers, provided they elucidate their reasons in the cover letter accompanying their submission. It's essential, however, for authors to exercise discretion in excluding individuals, as an excessive exclusion list may impede the peer review process. Notably, Editors reserve the right to extend invitations to excluded peer reviewers at their discretion. Intentionally falsifying information, for example, suggesting reviewers with a false name or email address, will result in rejection of the manuscript.


    Editors at AUDT uphold strict confidentiality for all submitted manuscripts, following COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers are bound to keep all details of the peer review process confidential, both during and after the evaluation, divulging only information officially released by the journal. If reviewers wish to involve a colleague, prior permission from the journal is necessary, and any contributors must be disclosed to the Editor upon report submission. This commitment ensures the integrity of AUDT's peer review system.

    AUDT will not share manuscripts with third parties outside of AUDT except in cases of suspected misconduct. Manuscripts may be shared with other Editors at AUDT, unless authors indicate on submission that they do not wish for their manuscript to be passed on beyond the journal they submitted to.

    Corrections and Retractions

    AUDT follows the ICMJE and COPE guidelines.

    Authors, readers, or organizations discovering errors or ethics concerns in a published article are urged to initiate contact with the respective journal using the available contact details on the journal website. Editors will review all reports, seeking additional expert advice as needed to determine the most suitable course of action.

    Aligned with AUDT's Permanency policy, any necessary corrections or retractions of published articles will be executed by publishing a bidirectionally linked Correction or Retraction note, directly associated with the original article. These notes comprehensively detail any modifications made to the original content. Importantly, the original article remains accessible in the public domain, with the subsequent Correction or Retraction being extensively indexed. In exceptional circumstances where material is deemed to infringe rights or is defamatory, the necessity to remove such content from our site and archive sites may arise.

    Corrections: For alterations to published articles that impact the interpretation and conclusions but do not entirely invalidate the article, the Editors may, at their discretion, implement corrections through the publication of a Correction. This Correction will be indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article, ensuring transparency and accessibility for readers.

    Retractions: On rare occasions, when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. Retraction notices are indexed and bidirectionally linked 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: In instances where an Editor identifies substantial concerns regarding the interpretation or conclusions of a published article, they have the option to release a statement to inform the readership. Editorial Expressions of Concern may be issued in cases of extended investigations involving intricate situations or when the concerns could have notable and immediate implications for public health or policy. Although an Editorial Expression of Concern can be superseded by a subsequent Correction or Retraction, it will persist as an integral part of the enduring published record.

    Removal of published content: There are situations in which action may be taken to remove published content, such as when (i) the content is defamatory, infringes on a third party's legal rights, or is otherwise unlawful; (ii) a court or government order, either issued or anticipated, mandates the removal of such content; or (iii) the content, if left unaddressed, presents an immediate and severe risk to health. Removal can be either temporary or permanent. Essential bibliographic metadata, including the title and authors, will be retained, accompanied by a statement elucidating the reasons for the content's removal.

    Appeals and Complaints

    AUDT adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints. Where an author believes that an editor has made an error in declining a paper, they may submit an appeal. The appeal letter should clearly state the reasons why the author considers the decision to be incorrect and provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the review. Further advice from members of the journal’s Editorial Advisory Panel and external experts will be sought regarding eligibility for re-review.

    Appeal against a rejection: If you wish to ask the Editor or Editorial Board to reconsider a rejection of a manuscript, you should, in the first instance, contact the Editor through the instructions on the journal website. Include the manuscript tracking number in the email subject line and the appeal letter. Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. Final decisions on appeals will be made by the Editorial Board Member handling the paper or the Editor. If appeals are successful, then authors will be given instructions on how to proceed. If an appeal merits further consideration, the Editor may send the authors' response and the revised paper out for further peer review.

    Complaints: Complaints about our processes or about publication ethics will in the first instance be handled by the Editor responsible for the journal. If the Editor is the subject of the complaint, please approach the editorial and publishing management team by email to Publisher@AUDT.org. 

    Special Issues

    All manuscripts submitted to AUDT Special Issues are assessed according to the journal’s standard editorial criteria and are subject to all of the standard Editorial Policies, including the Competing Interests policy. The content of the submission will also be assessed to ensure it lies within the scope of the Special Issue.

    All submissions that meet the journal’s criteria for peer review will undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. Please visit the journal’s website for information on the review process used. The peer review of any submissions for which the Editors of the Special Issue, have competing interests is handled by another Editor, who has no competing interests, to ensure the evaluation of these submissions is objective.

    Promoting Equity, Diversity and Inclusiveness within AUDT

    AUDT is online publication platform of scientific communication for global researchers, and publish original works without regard to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, geographic/regional background, religion, or socio-economic status. Our publisher encourages the Editors-in-Chief to invite and appoint diverse experts to our journal’s Editorial Boards.

    Borders and Territories

    Potential disputes over borders and territories may have particular relevance for authors in describing their research or in an author or editor correspondence address, and such issues should be respected. Content decisions are an editorial matter and where there is a potential or perceived dispute or complaint, the editorial team will attempt to come to a resolution that satisfies all parties involved. AUDT stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Updated on 22 December 2023

Open Access, Peer-reviewed

ISSN 2576-2516 (Online)

ISSN 2576-2508 (Print)

Top 10 DownloadsMore
Top 10 ClicksMore