Clinical Biomedical Communications (CBC) is a rapid, international, open-access journal committed to rigorous scientific standards, ethical publishing, and transparent communication with all stakeholders. The policies below explain in a comprehensive and practical way what is expected from authors, reviewers, and editors at every stage of the publication process.

To ensure the integrity of its scientific record, Clinical Biomedical Communications (CBC) operates under strict ethical guidelines. As a gold open-access journal, CBC utilizes the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license, which empowers authors to retain copyright while facilitating the immediate, unrestricted sharing of their research. The journal employs a rigorous blind peer-review process to safeguard against bias and ensure technical excellence at every stage. Authors are required to provide formal documentation of Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee approval for all research involving human or animal subjects, alongside a comprehensive disclosure of any competing interests.

The journal adheres to best-practice guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

All manuscripts are screened for originality via plagiarism-detection software to uphold the journal’s commitment to academic honesty and transparency across the global scientific community.

While the Editorial Board oversees the scientific direction of CBC, the Publisher serves as the institutional backbone and legal guardian of the scholarly record. The Publisher’s role is to provide the infrastructure, ethical framework, and support systems necessary to maintain the integrity of "the minutes of science."

Guardianship of the Scholarly Record

The Publisher recognizes that a journal is more than a collection of papers; it is a permanent archive of human knowledge.

Integrity Maintenance: The Publisher supports the extensive efforts of editors and the voluntary contributions of peer reviewers.

Investment and Nurturing: Beyond simple distribution, the Publisher invests in the technology and human resources required to ensure best practices are followed across all publications.

Industry Leadership: By working with other publishers and global associations, the Publisher helps set the gold standards for handling ethical matters, errors, and retractions.

Safeguarding Editorial Independence

A fundamental pillar of CBC is the separation of commercial interests from scientific judgment.

Revenue Neutrality: The Publisher ensures that potential revenue from advertising, reprints, or other commercial streams has zero impact on editorial decisions.

Decision Autonomy: Editors-in-Chief and their boards have full autonomy over the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts based solely on scientific merit and clinical relevance.

Technical, Procedural, and Legal Support

The Publisher provides the tools and protection necessary for the Editorial Board to perform their duties securely:

Integrity Tools: Providing access to industry-standard tools like Crossref Similarity Check (plagiarism detection) for every submission.

Ethics Membership: Facilitating membership in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for all editors.

Legal Counsel: Providing specialized legal review and counsel when editors face complex disputes, potential litigation, or challenges from third parties.

Inter-Journal Collaboration: Supporting editors in communications with other journals or publishers to resolve cross-publication ethical concerns.

Researcher Education

The Publisher is committed to the future of the scientific community.

Ethical Literacy: Providing extensive resources, advice, and education on publishing ethics, with a particular focus on supporting early-career researchers (ECRs).

Transparency Promotion: Encouraging a culture of transparency through webinars, white papers, and accessible guidelines.

CBC maintains a rigorous evaluation process to ensure the publication of high-quality, impactful research. Our editorial policy is designed to be transparent, efficient, and fair to all contributors.

Scope and Manuscript Requirements

CBC welcomes a diverse range of contributions, including original research, reviews, case reports, short communications, and methodological papers. To be considered for publication, manuscripts must meet the following criteria:

Originality: The work must be original and not currently under consideration by any other journal.

Ethical Compliance: Authors must provide mandatory documentation of ethics committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for all studies involving human or animal subjects.

Standards: Submissions must adhere strictly to the journal’s formatting and ethical guidelines.

The Evaluation Process

The journey from submission to publication follows a structured, multi-stage path:

Editorial Screening: Every manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief or Section Editors. They evaluate the work for scope relevance, novelty, ethical integrity, and general quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these fundamental standards may be desk-rejected to prevent unnecessary delays for the authors.

Peer Review: Qualifying manuscripts enter a single-blind peer review process. Each paper is evaluated by at least two independent experts in the field who assess scientific validity, methodological rigor, clarity, and clinical or biological significance.

Editorial Decision: Based on the reviewers' reports, the editors will issue one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

Minor Revision: Small changes or clarifications are required.

Major Revision: Significant technical or conceptual improvements are needed.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

Revisions and Final Authority

When a revision is requested, authors must provide a point-by-point response addressing all reviewer comments. If substantial changes are made, the editor may return the manuscript to the original reviewers for a second look.

Final publication decisions rest solely with the editorial board to ensure complete independence, consistency, and adherence to the highest scientific standards.

CBC is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process. We recognize that authors may occasionally disagree with editorial outcomes or have concerns regarding the conduct of the review. Our appeals and complaints procedure ensures that such cases are handled with objectivity and integrity.

Submitting an Appeal

Authors have the right to appeal a formal rejection if they believe the decision was based on a technical error, a misunderstanding of the data, or a failure to consider specific evidence presented in the manuscript.

Requirements: Appeals must be submitted in writing and include a detailed rebuttal letter.

Evidence-Based: The rebuttal must point-by-point address the reviewers’ and editors’ comments, providing scientific evidence or clarification to support the authors' position.

Scope: Appeals based purely on a difference of opinion regarding "impact" or "interest level" are rarely successful; the focus should remain on factual or methodological corrections.

The Appeal Review Process

To ensure impartiality, appeals are not handled solely by the original deciding editor.

Independent Oversight: Each appeal is reviewed by a senior editorial panel or an independent editor who was not involved in the initial decision.

Outcomes: The panel may decide to:

Uphold the original decision (Final).

Invite a revision based on the new clarifications.

Seek additional external reviews from new independent experts.

Formal Complaints and Ethics Investigations

Complaints regarding editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, or suspected research misconduct are treated with the utmost seriousness.

COPE Compliance: All investigations follow the protocols established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Procedure: Upon receiving a formal complaint, the Journal will conduct an internal inquiry. If necessary, we may consult with the authors’ home institutions, funding bodies, or other relevant stakeholders to reach a resolution.

Confidentiality: We handle all complaints with appropriate discretion to protect the rights of all parties involved during the investigative phase.

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board serve as the scientific stewards of CBC. Their primary mandate is to ensure that the "minutes of science" are recorded accurately, fairly, and with the highest regard for intellectual integrity.

Publication Decisions and Autonomy

The Editor is solely and independently responsible for deciding which submitted articles will be published.

Core Criteria: Decisions are underwritten by the scientific validation of the work and its clinical or molecular importance to the research community.

Legal Constraints: Editors must operate within the framework of current laws regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Collaborative Oversight: While the Editor holds final authority, they may confer with other board members, society officers, or reviewers to reach a balanced decision.

Rigorous Peer Review Management

The Editor ensures that the peer review process is transparent, unbiased, and conducted in a timely manner.

Independent Evaluation: Research articles must be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers. If opinions are divided, the Editor shall seek additional expert perspectives.

Reviewer Selection: Editors select reviewers based on specific expertise and must follow best practices to avoid "fraudulent reviewers."

Conflict Mitigation: Editors must scrutinize all reviewer disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and evaluate suggestions for self-citation to ensure no bias is introduced into the critique.

Principles of Fair Play and Transparency

CBC editors evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual and scientific content alone.

Equality: Evaluation is conducted without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Global Statistics on Peer Review: To ensure fairness, editors monitor submission trends. For context, in global biomedical publishing, roughly 15-20% of reviewers are from East Asia, 35-40% from Europe/North America, and the remainder from other regions. Editors strive to balance these demographics to prevent geographic bias.

Clarity of Expectations: Editors ensure that authors and reviewers have a clear understanding of the journal’s standards, utilizing a standard electronic submission system for all formal communications to maintain a verifiable audit trail.

Integrity of Citations and Metrics

To protect the credibility of the journal, Editors are forbidden from manipulating journal metrics.

No Coerced Citations: Editors shall not require authors to include references to CBC (or any other journal) for the purpose of artificially increasing impact factors.

Scholarly Justification: Citations should only be added for genuine scholarly reasons. Editors have the authority to remove inappropriate citation suggestions from reviewer comments before they reach the authors.

Personal Gain: Authors must never be required to cite an Editor's or reviewer's own work unless it is fundamentally necessary for the manuscript's context.

Confidentiality and Data Privacy

The Editor is the guardian of the manuscript’s confidentiality throughout the review process.

Privacy of Submissions: All submitted materials and communications with reviewers remain strictly confidential.

Identity Protection: Unless the journal utilizes an open peer-review model, the Editor must protect the anonymity of the reviewers.

Misconduct Investigations: In exceptional cases of suspected ethical breaches, and in consultation with the Publisher, limited information may be shared with other journals or institutions to facilitate a formal investigation.

Non-Appropriation: Editors are strictly prohibited from using unpublished information or ideas from a submitted manuscript for their own research or personal advantage without express written consent from the authors.

CBC upholds the highest standards of integrity by ensuring that all individuals credited as authors have played a substantial role in the research. These policies are designed to protect the transparency of scientific contributions and ensure clear lines of responsibility.

Criteria for Authorship

Authorship at CBC is strictly based on the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). To be listed as an author, an individual must meet all four of the following conditions:

Substantial Contribution: Significant involvement in the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.

Drafting and Revision: Participating in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content.

Final Approval: Giving final approval of the version to be published.

Accountability: Agreeing to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Note: These criteria are intended to safeguard against unethical practices such as “guest” (honorary), “gift” (unearned), or “ghost” (hidden) authorship.

Author Contribution Statement (CRediT)

To promote transparency, CBC requires a detailed Author Contribution Statement for every submission. We encourage authors to use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) model to specify individual roles, such as:

Conceptualization and Methodology

Data Curation and Formal Analysis

Investigation and Validation

Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Supervision and Project Administration

Changes to Authorship

The author list should be finalized prior to submission.

Post-Submission Changes: Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be accompanied by a written justification and a letter of consent signed by all original authors.

Post-Acceptance: Changes to authorship are generally not permitted once a manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Policy on Generative AI

In alignment with global ethical standards, Generative AI tools (such as Large Language Models) cannot be listed as authors. Because AI cannot take legal or ethical responsibility for the work, the following rules apply:

Disclosure: Any use of AI in the writing process or data analysis must be clearly disclosed in the Methods or Acknowledgements section.

Human Oversight: Human authors remain solely responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the content, including any portions generated or assisted by AI.

CBC is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of integrity in scientific publishing. We strictly adhere to the ethical frameworks and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

Defining Scientific Misconduct

To protect the reliability of the scientific record, CBC maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward research misconduct. This includes, but is not limited to:

Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

Data Fabrication and Falsification: Inventing data or results (fabrication) or manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, including changing or omitting data such that the research is not accurately represented (falsification).

Image and Dataset Manipulation: The intentional manipulation of digital images or datasets to mislead readers or obscure original findings.

Redundant Publication: Submitting the same (or substantially similar) work to multiple journals simultaneously or publishing the same research more than once without proper justification.

Unethical Research Practices: Failing to adhere to established ethical protocols for human or animal subjects.

Investigation and Resolution Process

When credible concerns regarding the integrity of a submission or a published article are raised, CBC follows a structured investigative protocol:

Initial Inquiry: The journal may pause the peer review or publication process to conduct a preliminary internal assessment.

Collaboration: Where necessary, CBC will collaborate with the authors’ home institutions, funding bodies, or relevant regulatory authorities to ensure a thorough investigation.

Communication: Authors will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications or evidence to address the concerns raised.

Actions and Enforcement

Depending on the severity and nature of the breach, the Editorial Board may take the following actions:

Clarifications or Corrections: Issuing a formal Erratum or Corrigendum for minor, non-intentional errors.

Rejection: Immediate rejection of a manuscript currently under review.

Expression of Concern: Publishing a formal notice if an investigation is inconclusive but serious concerns remain.

Retraction: Formally withdrawing a published article from the scientific record if findings are proven unreliable or the work is found to be unethical.

Notification of Authorities: Formally reporting serious breaches of integrity to the author’s institution or professional body.

Our Commitment: These measures are not merely punitive; they are essential for upholding the trust that the global scientific community and the public place in CBC.

CBC operates on the principle that transparency is the foundation of trust in scientific publishing. To maintain objectivity, all participants in the publication process authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any professional, personal, or financial relationships that could be perceived as influencing their judgment.

Defining Conflicts of Interest (COI): A conflict of interest exists when an individual’s secondary interests (such as financial gain or personal rivalry) could reasonably be seen to color their primary obligation to scientific integrity. These are generally categorized into two types:

Financial: Research funding, grants, employment, ownership of stocks or shares, patents (planned, pending, or issued), and receipt of consulting fees or honoraria.

Non-Financial: Unpaid advisory roles, board memberships, close personal relationships, professional rivalries, or deeply held academic or ideological positions.

Responsibilities of Contributors

For Authors: All relevant conflicts of interest and sources of funding must be declared in a dedicated Disclosure Statement within the manuscript. This allows readers to independently assess the potential for bias and understand the financial support behind the research. If no conflicts exist, authors must explicitly state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."

For Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts to the editors before accepting an invitation to review. If a reviewer has a personal or professional connection to the authors or a financial stake in the outcome of the study, they must recuse themselves to ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation.

For Editors: Editors who have a conflict of interest regarding a specific submission must delegate the handling of that manuscript to another member of the editorial board. This ensures that final decisions are made with complete editorial independence.

Conflict of Interest for Publisher-Employee Editors

In cases where editorial staff are direct employees of the Publisher, rigorous safeguards are in place to prevent bias:

Mandatory Reporting: Employee-editors must disclose all competing interests (financial or non-financial) as they arise and through an annual declaration.

Publication Restrictions: Employee-editors are generally discouraged from submitting original research to the journal. In exceptional cases (e.g., research conducted prior to employment), the submission must be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief, and the review process must be handled with absolute independence from the author-employee.

Anti-Corruption: Editorial staff are strictly forbidden from using non-public information acquired through their work for personal or financial gain.

CBC maintains a strict policy of financial transparency. Identifying the sources of support behind scientific research is essential for allowing readers, reviewers, and editors to evaluate the independence and objectivity of the work.

Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

Authors must explicitly disclose all sources of financial support received for the research and the preparation of the manuscript. This includes, but is not limited to:

Grants: National, international, or private research grants.

Institutional Support: Internal funding from universities, hospitals, or research institutes.

Industry Funding: Financial support from pharmaceutical, biotech, or medical device companies.

Foundations: Support from non-profit organizations or private foundations.

Required Details: For each source of funding, authors must provide the full name of the funding agency and the specific grant or award number.

Role of the Funder

Transparency extends beyond the amount of money received; it includes the level of influence the funding body had on the scientific process. Authors must describe the involvement of the funder in the following stages:

Study Design: Defining the hypothesis and methodology.

Data Collection & Analysis: The gathering and processing of raw results.

Interpretation of Data: Drawing conclusions from the findings.

Manuscript Writing: The drafting and critical revision of the text.

Submission Decision: The choice to submit the work to CBC for publication.

Statement of Independence: If the funders had no role in any of the stages mentioned above, authors must explicitly state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Assessment of Bias: Clear disclosure allows the scientific community to assess potential influences on the research. Failure to disclose relevant funding sources is considered a serious breach of publication ethics and may result in the rejection of a manuscript or the issuance of a post-publication correction.

CBC is committed to the highest ethical standards in the conduct of research. All studies involving biological subjects must demonstrate a profound respect for life, dignity, and the welfare of all participants. Any research involving human participants or animals must be conducted under formal approval from an appropriate ethics committee, such as an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethics Committee, or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), and the approval body and reference number must be reported in the manuscript.

Research Involving Human Participants

For all biomedical research involving human subjects, CBC requires strict adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must provide evidence of the following:

Formal Approval: Every study must be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent independent ethics committee. The name of the approving body and the specific protocol reference number must be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Informed Consent: Authors must confirm that voluntary, informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their legal guardians). The process must be culturally appropriate and accessible to the participants’ level of capacity.

Privacy and Confidentiality: To protect patient anonymity, authors must remove all non-essential identifiers. If a manuscript contains identifiable personal data, clinical photographs, or detailed case descriptions, specific written consent to publish that material is mandatory.

Animal Welfare and Research

CBC advocates for the humane treatment of animals in scientific research. Authors are expected to follow the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and provide:

Ethical Oversight: Documentation of approval from an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or a similar ethics board.

Methodological Transparency: A clear description of housing conditions, welfare measures, and specific steps taken to minimize pain, suffering, or distress.

Standard Guidelines: We encourage authors to follow the ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) to ensure all essential information is included for reproducibility and ethical transparency.

Hazards and Use of Human or Animal Subjects

Authors must explicitly identify in the manuscript any unusual hazards inherent in the use of chemicals, procedures, or equipment, providing sufficient detail to allow readers to assess and mitigate associated risks. For studies involving human subjects, the manuscript must include clear statements confirming that:

All procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant laws, institutional guidelines, and the Declaration of Helsinki,

The study received approval from the appropriate institutional ethics committee (with committee name and approval/reference number provided),

Informed consent was obtained from all participants (or their legal guardians/representatives), and

The privacy rights of human subjects were fully protected.

When the manuscript includes identifiable personal information, case details, or images of individuals, explicit written consent for publication must be obtained, retained by the authors, and made available to the journal upon request.

For animal research, authors must confirm that:

All procedures complied with applicable national and international regulations (e.g., U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, EU Directive 2010/63/EU, U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and/or Animal Welfare Act, as relevant),

The study adhered to the ARRIVE guidelines for transparent reporting of animal experiments, and

Approval was granted by the relevant institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC or equivalent), with details included in the manuscript.

These declarations should appear in the Materials and Methods section and/or under Statements and Declarations to ensure full ethical transparency, compliance, and reproducibility. Incomplete or inadequate documentation may result in rejection or processing delays.

CBC adheres to the highest international standards for the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical research. Our policies are designed to ensure that all clinical trials are ethically sound, scientifically robust, and fully transparent to the global medical community.

Regulatory Standards and Registration: To safeguard participant safety and data integrity, all clinical trials submitted to CBC must comply with Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) standards.

Prospective Registration: All clinical trials must be registered in a recognized public registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, CTRI, or any WHO-compliant registry) before the enrollment of the first participant.

Documentation: The trial registration number and the date of registration must be clearly stated in the manuscript’s abstract and methods section.

Protocol Consistency: Authors should ensure that the published results align with the original registered protocol. Any deviations from the primary outcomes or study design must be explicitly justified.

Transparent Reporting Guidelines

CBC requires authors to follow established reporting frameworks to ensure clarity and reproducibility. High-quality reporting prevents "cherry-picking" or selective outcome reporting.

CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (Parallel group randomized trials)

STARD: Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy studies

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SPIRIT: Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

Critical Elements of Trial Reporting

Manuscripts detailing clinical trials must provide a comprehensive description of the following:

Randomization & Blinding: Clear details on the method of sequence generation, allocation concealment, and who was blinded to the intervention.

Outcome Measures: Definition of primary and secondary endpoints, including how and when they were assessed.

Statistical Analysis Plan: A rigorous description of the power calculation, sample size determination, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data.

Why this matters: Prospective registration and adherence to CONSORT guidelines allow peer reviewers and readers to verify that the study was conducted as planned, reducing the risk of publication bias and increasing the clinical utility of the findings.

CBC recognizes that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the cornerstones of evidence-based medicine. To ensure these contributions are of the highest quality and transparency, we require strict adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement.

Core Reporting Requirements

Authors submitting systematic reviews or meta-analyses must provide a structured and transparent account of their methodology. Key requirements include:

Search Strategy: A detailed description of the databases searched, including specific search terms and dates, to ensure the search is reproducible.

Eligibility Criteria: Clear definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., PICO: Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome).

Study Selection: A rigorous account of how many records were identified, screened, and eventually included in the final analysis.

Risk-of-Bias Assessment: A formal evaluation of the methodological quality of the included studies using validated tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool).

Synthesis Methods: A transparent explanation of how data were handled and, if applicable, the statistical methods used for the meta-analysis.

Mandatory Documentation

To assist editors and reviewers in assessing the robustness of the review, the following must be included with the submission:

PRISMA Flow Diagram: A visual representation of the flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions.

PRISMA Checklist: A completed checklist indicating the page numbers where each required item (e.g., title, abstract, methods, results) is addressed in the manuscript.

Impact on Reproducibility

By following these standardized protocols, authors ensure that their work can be critically appraised and updated as new evidence emerges. This level of detail prevents "selective reporting" and provides clinicians and researchers with a reliable synthesis of the current state of molecular and clinical knowledge.

Submission Tip: We strongly recommend that authors register their systematic review protocols in a registry such as PROSPERO prior to starting the review to further enhance transparency and prevent duplication of effort.

CBC is a staunch advocate for Open Science. We believe that the value of a scientific contribution is inextricably linked to its reproducibility. Therefore, we require authors to provide the necessary transparency for others to verify, replicate, and build upon their findings.

Reproducibility of Materials and Methods

To ensure that experiments can be independently reproduced, authors must provide:

Unique Resources: Access to key materials such as unique reagents, cell lines, plasmids, or antibodies.

Methodological Detail: Comprehensive descriptions of all protocols. For computational work, this includes software version numbers, specific parameter settings, and custom code.

Restrictions: If materials are subject to Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) or legal restrictions, authors must explicitly state these limitations and provide a clear pathway for qualified researchers to request access.

Data Availability Statement (DAS)

All original research articles must include a mandatory Data Availability Statement. Where ethically and legally feasible, data underlying published results should be deposited in trusted public repositories that adhere to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles; resources such as re3data.org can assist in selecting repositories. Data Availability Statement should be placed before the reference list and must detail how the underlying data can be accessed.

Publicly Available: Provide the name of the repository (e.g., GenBank, Dryad, Figshare) and the DOI or accession number.

Available on Request: Specify the conditions under which data may be shared and provide a contact point.

Restricted Access: Clearly explain the ethical, legal, or contractual reasons why the data cannot be shared (e.g., patient privacy).

Editorial Oversight and Open Science

Authors are encouraged to share code, workflows, and protocols alongside data to maximize transparency and reusability. The inability to share essential data or materials may be weighed by the editors during the review process. In cases where the lack of transparency significantly undermines the scientific value or verifiability of the work, CBC reserves the right to decline publication.

By promoting clear data policies, we facilitate secondary analyses and ensure that the molecular and clinical insights published in CBC contribute to a lasting, verifiable body of global knowledge.

CBC is committed to the principles of open research and the permanent preservation of scientific knowledge. Our policies ensure that authors retain ownership of their intellectual property while guaranteeing that their findings remain accessible to the global community in perpetuity.

Copyright and Open Access Licensing

We believe that research should be as visible and usable as possible. To support this, CBC operates under a model that prioritizes author rights and broad dissemination:

Author Ownership: Authors retain the copyright to their work. Unlike traditional publishing models, you keep the legal ownership of your research while granting CBC a license to publish and distribute the Version of Record.

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License: All articles are published under the CC BY 4.0 license. This is the "gold standard" for open access, permitting others to:

Share: Copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.

Adapt: Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.

Requirement: Users must provide appropriate credit to the original authors and the journal, providing a link to the license and indicating if changes were made.

Digital Archiving and Long-Term Preservation

To safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record against technical failures or platform migrations, CBC employs a robust, multi-layered archiving strategy:

Secure Infrastructure: All content is stored using high-availability, cloud-based digital archiving (on enterprise-grade platforms such as AWS). This ensures that articles are protected by rigorous disaster recovery protocols and 24/7 accessibility.

Version Control: Our archiving systems maintain strict version control, ensuring that the "Version of Record" is preserved alongside any formal corrections or retractions.

Permanent Accessibility: By utilizing persistent identifiers (DOIs) and exploring partnerships with external preservation services (such as CLOCKSS or Portico), we ensure that citations remain valid and the research remains discoverable for decades to come.

CBC employs a zero-tolerance policy regarding the misappropriation of intellectual property. We use advanced screening technology and expert manual review to ensure that every manuscript represents an original and honest contribution to the field.

Plagiarism Detection and "Text Recycling"

Upon submission, every manuscript is processed through industry-standard plagiarism-detection software (such as iThenticate or CrossCheck).

Substantial Plagiarism: The uncredited copying of text, data, or unique ideas from others is a grave breach of ethics. Such cases typically lead to immediate rejection or, if discovered after publication, a formal retraction.

Text Recycling (Self-Plagiarism): Authors must avoid "recycling" large portions of their own previously published work. While we recognize that technical descriptions in the Methods section may naturally overlap with an author's earlier papers, these must still be appropriately cited and kept to a necessary minimum.

Minor Overlap: In cases of minor, unintentional similarity (such as common technical phrases), editors may allow authors to revise the manuscript to improve citations and paraphrasing.

Integrity of Figures and Data

The integrity of visual data is just as critical as the written word. CBC's editorial team and reviewers carefully screen images for signs of inappropriate manipulation.

Acceptable Adjustments: Global adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are permissible only if they are applied to the entire image and do not obscure or eliminate any specific feature of the original data.

Prohibited Actions: Specific features within an image must not be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. Combining disparate images into a single figure without clear visual borders (such as "splicing" gel lanes) is strictly prohibited.

Original Data Access: Authors should be prepared to provide original, unprocessed source images (e.g., uncropped western blots or raw microscopy files) upon request by the editors.

Consequences of Misconduct

When evidence of plagiarism or manipulation is confirmed, CBC follows COPE guidelines to resolve the issue:

Investigation: The journal will contact the authors for a formal explanation and request raw data.

Institutional Notification: For serious breaches, CBC may formally notify the authors’ home institutions, funding agencies, or professional regulatory bodies.

The Scholarly Record: Retractions or "Expressions of Concern" will be published to inform the community and ensure the scientific record remains accurate.

Guideline for Authors: When in doubt, over-cite. If you are reusing a figure or a significant block of text from your own previous work, you must obtain permission from the original publisher (if applicable) and clearly state the source in your caption or text.

CBC recognizes the transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research and writing. However, to maintain the integrity of the scientific record, the use of AI must be governed by strict transparency, accountability, and human oversight.

Author Responsibilities and Disclosure

While AI can be a valuable assistant, it cannot replace the intellectual rigor of a human researcher. Authors are subject to the following requirements:

Mandatory Disclosure: Authors must explicitly disclose the use of AI tools (e.g., Large Language Models like ChatGPT, or AI-driven data analysis software) in the Methods or Acknowledgements section. This includes assistance with language editing, drafting, or data summarization.

Human Accountability: AI tools cannot be listed as authors. The human authors remain 100% responsible for the accuracy, originality, and ethical compliance of the entire manuscript.

Verification: Because AI can produce "hallucinations" or biased outputs, authors must critically verify every AI-generated citation, data point, and statement against the original source material.

Prohibited Uses of AI

To prevent the corruption of scientific data, the following practices are strictly forbidden:

Data Fabrication: Using AI to generate synthetic datasets, simulate clinical results, or create "representative" images that do not exist in reality.

Reference Manipulation: Generating fake or misleading citations.

Peer Review Subversion: Using AI to bypass or manipulate the peer review process, including the generation of automated reviewer responses or fraudulent peer feedback.

CBC seeks to publish original, high-impact research that adds fresh value to the scientific record. To prevent the inflation of the literature and ensure the clarity of the evidence base, we strictly enforce policies against redundant or "salami-sliced" publications.

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

A publication is considered redundant if it shares substantially the same hypotheses, data, or conclusions with a previously published work without clear justification.

Simultaneous Submission: Manuscripts must not be under consideration by any other journal while being reviewed at CBC.

The "Salami" Rule: Authors should avoid fragmenting a single large study into multiple small papers (salami-slicing) if the individual papers do not represent distinct, significant scientific milestones.

Permissible Related Outputs

CBC recognizes that research often evolves through different stages of dissemination. The following are generally not considered prior publications:

Theses and Dissertations: Research that has been published as part of a university degree requirement.

Conference Abstracts: Brief summaries or posters presented at professional meetings.

Preprints: Versions of a manuscript posted to non-peer-reviewed servers (e.g., bioRxiv, medRxiv) prior to submission.

Requirement: In all the cases above, authors must disclose the existence of the prior version in their cover letter and properly cite the original source within the manuscript. The submission to CBC must represent a significantly extended and refined version of the work.

To maintain the highest standards of copyright integrity and professional publishing ethics, Clinical Biomedical Communications (CBC) requires absolute transparency regarding the reuse of previously published materials.

Reuse of Figures and Data

If you are incorporating elements from your own previous work or the work of others, transparency is mandatory:

Permissions: Authors are responsible for obtaining formal permission from the original copyright holder (usually the publisher) to reuse figures or tables.

Citing Sources: Every reused element must be clearly labeled—for example: "Reproduced with permission from [Original Source Citation]."

Cross-Referencing: If the current study is a follow-up or secondary analysis of a previously published dataset, the primary study must be prominently cited.

Responsibility for Secured Permissions

Authors are responsible for obtaining and documenting formal permission to reproduce, reuse, or adapt any content that has been previously published or is currently under copyright. This includes:

Visual Data: Figures, diagrams, photographs, and illustrations.

Tabular Data: Tables or complex datasets.

Textual Content: Substantial segments of text or proprietary formulas.

Exception: Permissions are generally not required for materials published under a compatible open-access license (such as CC BY), provided that the original source and authors are cited according to the license terms.

Documentation and Submission

At the time of manuscript submission, authors must confirm the following:

Verification: All necessary permissions have been secured from the original copyright holders (typically the publisher or the author).

Attribution: Appropriate credit lines and acknowledgments are clearly included in the manuscript (e.g., "Reproduced with permission from [Source]").

Record Keeping: Authors should retain copies of all permission grants, as the Editorial Office may request these documents at any stage during the review or production process.

Withdrawal after submission is treated seriously because it consumes editorial and reviewer time; authors must submit a written explanation signed or agreed to by all co‑authors. Reasons may include serious errors discovered post‑submission, ethical concerns, or institutional requirements, and the journal may record the withdrawal for internal tracking.

The Withdrawal Process

Authors who wish to withdraw their manuscript must submit a formal written request to the Editorial Office.

Consent: The request must be signed or explicitly confirmed via email by all co-authors.

Justification: A clear and valid explanation must be provided. Acceptable reasons include the discovery of significant errors in data, the identification of ethical oversights, or unexpected institutional/legal requirements.

Internal Tracking: CBC maintains a record of withdrawals. While a single withdrawal is usually a routine administrative matter, frequent or "last-minute" withdrawals without sound scientific justification may be flagged for internal review.

Withdrawal After Acceptance

Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, the editorial process is nearly complete. At this stage, withdrawal is only permitted under exceptional circumstances, such as:

Discovery of fundamental scientific flaws that invalidate the results.

Proof of ethical misconduct or lack of proper consent.

Legal or copyright issues that cannot be resolved through an Erratum.

Journal Prerogative: If serious concerns arise after acceptance but before final publication, the journal reserves the right to pause the process and conduct its own investigation. In such cases, the journal may decide to issue a rejection or an expression of concern rather than allowing a simple withdrawal, to ensure the integrity of the scientific record is protected.

Ethical Considerations: Authors are strongly discouraged from withdrawing a manuscript simply because they wish to submit it to a journal with a higher impact factor after receiving peer review feedback from CBC. This practice, known as "review shopping," is considered a breach of publishing ethics and a waste of the scientific community's collective resources.

Types of Post-Publication Amendments

Depending on the severity and nature of the issue, the journal will issue one of the following notices:

Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum): For small, honest errors (e.g., a misspelled author name, a labeling error in a figure, or an omitted funding source) that do not change the study's conclusions.

Expression of Concern: Issued by the Editors when there is strong evidence of a potential problem but an investigation is ongoing or inconclusive. It serves as a warning to readers.

Retraction: Reserved for serious cases where the findings are proven unreliable whether due to honest error, data fabrication, plagiarism, or major ethical violations.

The Retraction Process

Retractions are never taken lightly. When a retraction is necessary, CBC adheres to the following protocol:

Clear Justification: A formal retraction notice is published, linked to the original article, explaining precisely why the work is being withdrawn and who is initiating the retraction (the authors, the journal, or the institution).

Non-Defamatory Tone: The notice focuses on the scientific and ethical facts of the case, avoiding personal attacks or unnecessary defamation.

Preserving the Record: Retracted articles are not deleted from the journal’s website or archives. Instead, they remain accessible but are prominently marked with a "RETRACTED" watermark on every page of the PDF and HTML versions.

Why We Preserve Retracted Content

Maintaining the historical record is a core principle of scientific transparency. By keeping retracted papers visible (but clearly labeled), CBC ensures that:

Future Researchers do not inadvertently rely on compromised data or flawed conclusions.

The Scientific Community can understand the reasons for the failure, which helps in preventing similar issues in the future.

Citations remain traceable, ensuring that the impact of the retraction is understood by anyone who has previously cited the work.

The transition from an accepted manuscript to a published Version of Record is a collaborative effort between authors and the CBC production team. This phase ensures that the final article is technically accurate, professionally formatted, and optimized for global indexing.

The Proofing Stage: Once your manuscript is accepted, it undergoes professional typesetting. Authors will receive a set of digital proofs (typically as a PDF) for a final review.

Permissible Changes: This is the final opportunity to correct typographical errors, layout issues, or minor clerical inaccuracies.

Restricted Changes: Substantive alterations—such as adding new data, changing the results, or revising the author list—are generally not permitted at this stage. Any change that significantly affects the scientific interpretation of the work may require a return to the editorial board for re-review.

Deadlines: To maintain a consistent publication schedule, authors are expected to return their corrected proofs within the timeframe specified by the production office (usually 48–72 hours).

Production and Final Publication: After the proofs are finalized, the article moves into the final production phase:

DOI Assignment: A permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned, ensuring the work is instantly citable.

Metadata Optimization: The article is tagged with XML metadata to ensure it is accurately indexed by search engines and academic databases (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar).

The Version of Record: The final, paginated version is published on the CBC website.

Access and Dissemination: As a gold open-access journal, CBC provides immediate, unrestricted access to the final Version of Record:

Downloadable Content: Authors and the public can download the final PDF directly from the journal’s platform.

Sharing and Promotion: Under the CC BY 4.0 license, authors are encouraged to share the final link or the PDF version on institutional repositories, personal websites, and professional social media networks.

Impact Tracking: Authors are encouraged to use the stable DOI link when sharing their work to ensure that all citations and "altmetric" mentions (social media shares, news mentions) are accurately tracked and attributed to their article.

The Editor-in-Chief of CBC, in collaboration with the publisher’s research integrity team, is responsible for actively protecting the integrity of the published scientific record. Upon receiving credible reports or suspicions of misconduct whether in research conduct, publication practices, peer review, or editorial processes the editor must promptly investigate by engaging the author(s) for clarification, evaluating all claims fairly, and, when warranted, consulting relevant institutions, funding agencies, or ethics bodies. If compelling evidence of serious misconduct emerges, the editor coordinates with the publisher to issue appropriate remedial actions without delay, such as a correction, an expression of concern, a retraction, or another notice that accurately updates the literature while preserving transparency and trust in the scholarly record.

CBC recognizes that high-quality research is often the result of broad collaboration and support. To maintain transparency and ensure all contributions are properly attributed, the Acknowledgements section must be used to credit individuals and organizations that do not meet the formal criteria for authorship.

Non-Author Contributions: The Acknowledgements section is dedicated to individuals who provided significant assistance but whose involvement does not warrant an authorship credit. These may include:

Technical & Laboratory Staff: Individuals who performed routine experiments or data collection.

Specialized Professionals: Medical illustrators, statisticians, or data scientists who provided specific technical services.

Editorial Support: Language editors, writing assistants, or translators who helped refine the manuscript.

Administrative Support: Department heads or coordinators who provided general institutional resources.

Consent Requirement: Authors should obtain formal consent from any individual named in the Acknowledgements. This is particularly important as a public acknowledgement may be perceived as an endorsement of the study's conclusions by that individual.

Disclosing Tool-Based Support: In line with our policies on transparency, authors must use this section to disclose the use of specialized digital tools:

Generative AI: If AI tools were used for language polishing, summarization, or drafting, they must be acknowledged here (unless already detailed in the Methods section).

Proprietary Software: Specific mention should be made of specialized software or hardware provided by third parties for the research.

Funding and Institutional Support: Accurate reporting of financial support is a critical requirement for compliance with global funding mandates. Authors must explicitly list:

Funding Agencies: The full name of all granting bodies.

Grant Numbers: Specific identification numbers for all associated funds.

Institutional Support: Any specific department or university funds that supported the project.

Role of the Funder: A brief statement explaining whether the funder had any role in the study design, data collection, or the decision to publish.

CBC does not accept advertisements, which helps maintain a clear separation between editorial content and commercial interests. This policy reduces potential pressure or perceived bias from advertisers and reinforces the journal’s commitment to independent, science‑driven decision‑making.

By avoiding advertising revenue, the journal relies on other support mechanisms (such as institutional backing or publication fees elsewhere) but gains flexibility to prioritize scientific merit and ethical standards over commercial considerations.

The landscape of biomedical research and digital publishing is constantly changing. To ensure that CBC remains at the forefront of academic integrity and best practices, we maintain a flexible and proactive approach to our regulatory framework.

Revision of Regulations: CBC reserves the right to periodically update and refine these policies. Revisions are typically driven by:

Evolving Ethical Standards: Aligning with updated mandates from COPE, ICMJE, and other global regulatory bodies.

Technological Developments: Addressing new challenges and opportunities presented by tools such as Generative AI, advanced image forensics, and data-sharing platforms.

Community Expectations: Responding to the needs of our authors, reviewers, and readers to ensure the journal remains a transparent and trusted venue for scientific discourse.

Transparency and Documentation: We are committed to clear communication regarding any changes to our operating procedures:

Public Access: All current policies are hosted on the CBC website and are accessible to the public at all times.

Version History: Significant updates will be documented with a clear effective date.

Notification: When major policy shifts occur (e.g., changes to open-access fees or authorship criteria), the journal may issue an editorial announcement to inform our community of contributors.

Note to Authors: Authors are encouraged to review the policies at the time of submission to ensure their manuscript complies with the most current version of the regulations.

To ensure a clear understanding of the responsibilities associated with the publication and application of research, CBC provides the following disclaimers:

Author Responsibility and Editorial Independence: The views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in articles published by CBC are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the official positions, policies, or opinions of:

The Journal's Editorial Board

The Editor-in-Chief

The Publisher or its affiliates

While the journal employs a rigorous peer-review process to ensure scientific validity, the responsibility for the accuracy of the data and the integrity of the findings rests primarily with the contributing authors.

Medical and Clinical Caution: CBC is a scientific forum and not a source of direct medical advice.

Professional Judgment: Clinical recommendations, diagnostic procedures, and treatment decisions discussed in published papers must always be made by qualified healthcare practitioners.

Contextual Application: Practitioners must exercise their professional judgment, taking into account the unique circumstances of each individual patient.

Compliance: All medical decisions should align with local regulations, institutional protocols, and the most current evidence-based standards of care.

Risk: Neither the Journal nor the Publisher shall be held liable for any injury or damage to persons or property arising from the use of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the published material.