The acknowledgements section is reserved for recognizing individuals or organizations whose contributions were significant to the completion of the work but do not meet the authorship criteria as defined by Leapman Journal. Particular attention should be given to appropriately acknowledging contributors in cross-national or multi-institutional collaborations, including those based in local or underrepresented research settings, in order to support equity and transparency in scholarly partnerships.

This section must not be used to declare any competing interests, including those associated with funding sources that may stand to benefit or lose from the publication of the article. All competing interests must be disclosed in a separate statement, in accordance with Leapman Journal’s conflict of interest policy.

Acknowledgements should remain concise and focused. Excessive language, personal expressions of gratitude, or references to editors, anonymous reviewers, or general institutional support should be avoided unless such acknowledgment is substantively relevant to the research.

Authors should acknowledge financial support only when the funding:

1. Falls within the specific scope of the work presented in the manuscript, and

2. Directly enabled the experiments, data acquisition, analysis, or publication associated with the article.

To determine whether a particular funding source warrants acknowledgment, authors should ask:

• Did the financial support directly contribute to the generation of the data, materials, or findings reported in this manuscript?

• Did the funding cover publication-related expenses, such as article processing charges?

If the answer to either question is yes, the support should be acknowledged, including the name of the funding agency and the grant number, where applicable. If the answer is no, the support should not be cited in this section.

It is the responsibility of each author to ensure that all relevant sources of funding have been disclosed in accordance with both journal policy and any requirements set forth by the funding agencies.

The recommended format for acknowledging financial support is as follows:

J.K.L. acknowledges research funding from the [Name of Funding Agency], grant number XXXXX. M.N.O. received publication support from the [Name of Funding Agency], grant number XXXXX.

Authorship acknowledges both intellectual contribution and professional responsibility. Each author listed on a manuscript submitted to Leapman Journal must meet the following authorship criteria, adapted from internationally recognized standards of academic integrity and research transparency:

1. Each author must have made a substantial contribution to at least one of the following: the conception or design of the study; the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; the development of essential software or tools used in the research; or the drafting or critical revision of the manuscript;

2. Each author must have reviewed and approved the version of the manuscript submitted for publication, as well as any revisions that incorporate their contributions;

3. Each author must accept personal responsibility for their individual contributions and agree to participate in resolving questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work, even if they were not directly involved in that component.

Inclusive Collaboration and Global Ethics

In studies involving fieldwork or collaboration across regions, Leapman Journal strongly encourages authors to include local researchers as co-authors when they satisfy the above criteria. This policy is intended to support equitable authorship practices, foster meaningful academic partnerships, and recognize contributions from underrepresented or regionally embedded scholars.

Researchers are advised to reflect on the ethical dimensions of international collaboration, including fair allocation of credit, data access, capacity building, and institutional equity. Disclosure of ethical considerations relating to global partnerships may be requested by the editorial team during peer review, and such information may be published as part of the manuscript’s ethics statement, where relevant.

Writing Assistance and Professional Medical Writers

All forms of writing assistance—whether technical, editorial, or linguistic—must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript, regardless of the article type. Contributors providing such assistance should be named in the Acknowledgements section, along with a brief description of their role and funding source, if applicable.

Leapman Journal will not consider non-primary research articles (e.g., reviews, perspectives, policy papers) that have been prepared in whole or in part by uncredited professional medical writers or editorial services.

Authorship Order and Agreement

Leapman Journal does not impose any specific order for listing authors. The sequence of authorship should be mutually agreed upon by all contributors prior to submission. Submission of a manuscript constitutes confirmation by the corresponding author that all listed individuals meet the criteria for authorship, have reviewed and approved the manuscript, and have agreed to their inclusion in the author list.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that this consensus is in place prior to submission, and for managing all communications with the editorial office on behalf of the author group throughout the peer review and publication process.

Responsibilities of the Corresponding Author

In multi-institutional or multi-group collaborations, the corresponding author—along with at least one designated lead from each contributing group—must assume responsibility for the integrity of the research process and its reporting. Specific responsibilities include:

• Ensuring that all data, software, and materials conform to prevailing standards of transparency and reproducibility in the relevant field;

• Confirming that the underlying data and materials are preserved and remain accessible for verification and reanalysis, in accordance with discipline-specific norms;

• Ensuring that all representations of data, results, and software accurately reflect the original findings;

• Identifying and minimizing any obstacles to sharing data, code, or materials described in the manuscript;

• Verifying the final author list and associated contribution statements on behalf of all collaborators.

The corresponding author must also obtain any necessary permissions for referencing unpublished material (such as personal communications, preprints, or in-press work) at the time of submission. Figures or content previously published elsewhere must be appropriately identified, and written reuse permission must be provided where required.

Proof Review and Post-publication Responsibilities

Following acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for reviewing the manuscript proof and verifying the accuracy of all author names, affiliations, funding acknowledgements, and disclosures.

After publication, the corresponding author serves as the primary contact for post-publication inquiries and must notify all co-authors of any editorial updates, corrections, or issues that may arise. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to coordinate timely responses to any concerns brought to the attention of the journal.

Changes to Authorship

Requests to modify the authorship list after initial submission—including adding or removing authors, changing author order, or designating a different corresponding author—must be accompanied by written consent from all listed authors. No changes to the author list are permitted once a manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.

The journal is not positioned to adjudicate authorship disputes. Such matters must be resolved through institutional mechanisms prior to publication.

Institutional Affiliations

Each author must list as their primary affiliation the institution where the majority of their contribution to the research was carried out. If an author has changed affiliations since the time of the study, their current address may be listed as a secondary affiliation. Leapman Journal maintains neutrality regarding territorial or jurisdictional claims expressed through institutional names or author addresses.

Author Identification

Authors are encouraged to provide Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) iDs to support proper attribution and discoverability of scholarly contributions. While submission of an ORCID iD is not mandatory, corresponding authors and co-authors are welcome to include them.

Leapman Journal recognizes the evolving role of artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing and maintains the obligation to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in its application. This policy outlines the journal’s position on the use of AI tools in the preparation, evaluation, and editorial handling of scholarly manuscripts.

AI and Authorship

Artificial intelligence tools, including large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and similar systems, do not meet the journal’s authorship criteria. Attribution of authorship carries with it the responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, and originality of the published work—obligations that cannot be fulfilled by non-human systems.

When an LLM or comparable AI tool is used during manuscript preparation for substantive functions such as content generation, paraphrasing, summarization, or data interpretation, the use must be clearly disclosed in the Methods section of the manuscript. If no such section exists, disclosure should be made in a separate, clearly indicated portion of the manuscript. The disclosure must include the name and version of the AI tool used and a description of the specific function it performed.

AI tools used exclusively for language and presentation editing—for example, for improving grammar, clarity, style, or formatting—do not require disclosure. This type of activity is considered “AI-assisted copy editing,” defined as human-directed refinement of author-generated content for linguistic precision and stylistic coherence. Such use does not involve the generation of new content or independent substantive revision. Authors are required to retain full responsibility for the final version of the text and to confirm that all AI-supported modifications reflect their intended meaning.

Use of Generative AI for Images and Visual Materials

The use of generative AI to create images, figures, or videos introduces unresolved questions concerning intellectual property, provenance, and scientific validity. Leapman Journal, in accordance with best practices in publication ethics and current legal standards, does not permit the inclusion of AI-generated visual content for publication unless specific conditions are met.

Exceptions may be considered in the following cases:

• The content was created by a licensed image provider operating under a contract that ensures legal compliance and verifiable authorship;

• The image or video is directly referenced within a manuscript that focuses on artificial intelligence and its applications, subject to editorial review;

• The generative tool used is based on structured scientific data with documented attribution, validation, and transparency, and its outputs are verifiable for accuracy and ethical compliance.

All accepted exceptions must be explicitly labeled as generated by artificial intelligence and identified as such within the image metadata or caption field. Submissions not meeting these requirements will be returned for revision or rejected.

The use of non-generative AI tools for technical purposes—such as image enhancement, figure formatting, or data visualization—must also be disclosed in the appropriate figure legend or methods description and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

This policy will be reviewed and updated as the regulatory and technological environment evolves.

Use of AI Tools by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are selected for their subject-matter expertise, their ability to provide independent critical evaluation, and their commitment to confidentiality and ethical review practices. Reviewers are responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and intellectual validity of their evaluations. These responsibilities cannot be delegated to non-human systems.

Reviewers must not upload any portion of the manuscript under review—including text, figures, tables, or supplementary files—into generative AI platforms or third-party tools that store, process, or transmit submitted content.

If a reviewer uses any AI tool in the course of preparing their evaluation—for example, to check statistical syntax or suggest stylistic rewording—this use must be transparently disclosed within the review report. Under no circumstances does such disclosure transfer accountability for the review’s content, which remains solely with the human reviewer.

The journal may develop secure internal tools for peer review support in the future. Until such systems are available and validated, use of generative AI tools in the peer review process is prohibited.

Editorial Use of AI

Leapman Journal may, at the discretion of the editorial team, employ internal AI-assisted tools to support the creation of non-substantive editorial materials. Such outputs may include article summaries, plain-language statements, glossary definitions, and communication assets intended for outreach or educational purposes.

All AI-assisted content is subject to editorial review, revision, and fact-checking by human editors and/or authors to ensure compliance with the journal’s publication standards. In any instance where AI involvement materially contributes to the published record, such participation will be disclosed appropriately within the editorial or supplementary material.

Leapman Journal is committed to fairness, transparency, and the responsible management of the editorial and peer review process. Authors and other contributors have the right to express concerns about decisions or conduct involving the handling of manuscripts or ethical matters. The following policy describes the procedures for submitting appeals and complaints.

Appeals

Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected in error may request a reconsideration of the editorial decision. The initial appeal should be submitted to the handling editor, following the instructions provided on the journal’s official website. Appeals are processed after active submissions under review, and as such, the time to resolution may be longer than for routine editorial decisions.

All appeals will be assessed by members of the editorial team, who may consult additional editors or reviewers where appropriate. The decision reached upon review of the appeal is final.

Authors should ensure that appeals are substantive and based on either a perceived error in the editorial assessment, a misunderstanding of the scientific content, or procedural irregularities. Appeals that do not present compelling grounds or new evidence are unlikely to result in a reversal of the original decision.

If an appeal is successful, the author will receive instructions on the next steps for manuscript processing.

Complaints

This policy applies to complaints concerning process failures—such as undue delay, miscommunication, or administrative error—as well as to concerns involving potential breaches of publication ethics, including but not limited to misconduct by authors, reviewers, or editors.

Complaints regarding editorial decisions to reject a manuscript are addressed through the appeals process described above and are not handled under this complaints procedure.

Complaints about procedural issues

Concerns regarding delays, lack of communication, or irregularities in manuscript handling should be raised directly with the Editor-in-Chief or the editor responsible for the manuscript. Where appropriate, a member of the journal’s staff may also be involved in the review of such complaints.

Upon receipt, the complaint will be reviewed in consultation with relevant editorial team members. Feedback will be provided to the complainant after a thorough examination of the circumstances. When applicable, feedback will also be used internally to improve editorial operations.

Complaints related to publication ethics

Allegations of misconduct—including, but not limited to, issues involving plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes, or inappropriate reviewer or editor behavior—will be investigated in accordance with the principles and guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Editor-in-Chief or responsible editor will manage the investigation and determine the appropriate course of action. Where the case is complex or involves uncertainty, journal staff or legal and ethical advisors may be consulted. In matters involving external editors, internal staff may be asked to guide the process.

If the Editor-in-Chief is the subject of the complaint, the matter should be referred directly to the publisher’s Research Integrity Office.

Should the complainant remain dissatisfied after the initial review and response, the matter may be escalated to the journal’s senior editorial management for further investigation.

Leapman Journal upholds a professional environment grounded in mutual respect, integrity, and accountability. We are committed to maintaining constructive and courteous interactions among all individuals involved in the scholarly publishing process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.

All members of the Leapman editorial and publishing staff are expected to conduct themselves with professionalism and civility in all communications. We, in turn, expect authors, reviewers, institutional representatives, and members of the public to uphold the same standards of conduct in their interactions with our team.

Unacceptable behavior—including verbal aggression, harassment, intimidation, bullying, or discriminatory remarks directed at Leapman Journal staff—will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We reserve the right to cease communication with, suspend submission privileges for, or otherwise restrict engagement with individuals whose behavior is determined to be threatening, abusive, or persistently inappropriate.

In severe or repeated cases, Leapman Journal may report such conduct to the individual’s affiliated institution, employer, or appropriate legal authorities as warranted. Our commitment to respectful communication is essential to fostering a collaborative, inclusive, and ethically sound publishing environment.

Leapman Journal is committed to full transparency in the publication process. To help readers evaluate the objectivity and reliability of published research, all participants involved in manuscript authorship, peer review, or editorial decision-making are required to disclose any actual or perceived competing interests, both financial and non-financial, that are relevant to the content of the submitted work.

The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a complete competing interests declaration on behalf of all co-authors at the time of submission. All disclosures are considered during the review process and, if applicable, are published in the final article.

Definition

A competing interest is any relationship, obligation, or activity—financial or otherwise—that could influence or be perceived to influence the presentation, interpretation, or evaluation of the submitted work. Competing interests do not necessarily preclude publication but must be openly declared to ensure transparency.

Financial competing interests include but are not limited to:

• Funding: Any financial support received for conducting the research, including salaries, equipment, supplies, or other costs provided by entities that may benefit or lose financially as a result of publication. If a funder was involved in any aspect of the research process—such as study design, data collection, analysis, or manuscript preparation—this must be disclosed.

• Employment: Current, recent (i.e., during the course of the project), or anticipated employment by an organization that stands to gain or lose financially from the publication.

• Personal financial assets: Ownership of equity, stock, or shares in companies that may be affected financially by the publication; receipt of consulting fees, honoraria, or other forms of personal remuneration; patent holdings or applications, whether granted or pending. For patents, the following information must be disclosed: the applicant (whether author or institution), the name of inventor(s), application number, current status, and the portion of the manuscript to which the patent is related.

No specific monetary threshold defines significance. A reasonable guiding principle is: disclose any interest that, if later made public, could cause embarrassment or raise doubts about the work’s objectivity. Widely diversified mutual funds or index-based investments are not considered relevant.

Non-financial competing interests include any personal, professional, political, or ideological relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the content or judgment involved in the manuscript. Examples include:

• Uncompensated membership in governmental or non-governmental organizations

• Volunteer advisory roles in commercial or advocacy groups

• Writing or consulting for educational or policy entities

• Participation as an expert witness in legal proceedings

Authors and reviewers are encouraged to disclose any unpaid positions or affiliations that could be perceived as relevant.

Application to Authors

Authors must disclose any competing interests at the time of submission using the designated fields in the manuscript submission system. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have reviewed and approved the final statement.

For manuscripts submitted under a double-anonymized review model, authors must provide a minimal declaration in the submission system (e.g., “The authors declare the existence of a financial/non-financial competing interest” or “The authors declare no competing interests”) and submit the full disclosure in the cover letter. Full declarations are shared with reviewers only after acceptance to preserve anonymity.

All published articles must include one of the following standard statements:

• “The authors declare the following competing interests: [detailed disclosure].”

• “The authors declare no competing interests.”

Where authors are legally or contractually prohibited from disclosing competing interests, they must use the following statement:
“The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing competing interests related to this work.”

Authors are not required to disclose the monetary value of any interest.

Application to Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to assess their ability to evaluate manuscripts impartially. Any relationship—financial or otherwise—that could be perceived as influencing their review must be disclosed to the editor before accepting the invitation. Reviewers may still participate in the process if the conflict is judged by the editor to be minor or not disqualifying.

Importantly, having a competing interest does not automatically preclude a reviewer from participating. Editors will make case-by-case determinations based on the nature and relevance of the interest.

Reviewers who believe a meaningful conflict exists should decline the invitation to review.

Application to Editors

All Leapman Journal editors must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived to affect their editorial judgment. These disclosures must be reported to the publisher. Failure to disclose such interests constitutes a violation of editorial policy and will be treated as a disciplinary matter.

Application to External Editors, Guest Editors, and Editorial Board Members

Editors who are not full-time editorial staff—including Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors—are subject to the same disclosure and recusal policies as internal editors. These individuals must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a competing interest exists, such as:

• Co-authorship or collaboration with an author within the past three years;

• Institutional affiliation with any of the authors;

• Personal or professional relationships that may affect impartiality.

If an external editor is also an author on a submitted manuscript, the conflict must be disclosed in the manuscript’s competing interests section. A different editor with no competing interest will be assigned to oversee the review process. Submissions involving editors undergo the same peer review procedures as all other manuscripts.

Application to Publishing Policy

Leapman Journal upholds a policy of strict editorial independence. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial sponsorships, advertising agreements, or other financial arrangements. Where such relationships exist, they will be disclosed in accordance with best practices to prevent any appearance of compromised objectivity.

Editorial Context

Leapman Journal’s competing interests policy is informed by evolving best practices in scholarly publishing and by editorial standards set by independent organizations. Similar policies have been developed and refined by peer publications in response to the growing complexity of financial and non-financial relationships in modern academic work. These practices are designed to promote openness, trust, and credibility within the global research community.

All editorial and peer review records maintained by Leapman in the course of manuscript processing shall be treated as privileged and strictly confidential. This includes, without limitation, submitted manuscripts, reviewer evaluations, editorial communications, author responses, and internal deliberations. Confidentiality applies in perpetuity, irrespective of the final editorial disposition of the submission.

Manuscripts under editorial review shall not be disclosed, transmitted, referenced, or discussed—either in part or in full—outside the formal editorial workflow, unless express prior written authorization has been granted by Leapman. Editors, reviewers, and journal staff are prohibited from retaining, reproducing, forwarding, or using submitted materials for personal, academic, commercial, or institutional purposes not directly related to the editorial assessment of the work.

Peer review shall be conducted under conditions of anonymity, unless explicitly exempted by an approved open review framework. Reviewer identities shall not be disclosed to authors or external parties. Reviewers are not authorized to identify themselves to authors, or to cite or circulate any material associated with the manuscript. In the event that technical consultation is required, the reviewer shall seek prior approval from the editorial office and must disclose, in writing, the name and institutional affiliation of any individual consulted. All consulted individuals shall be bound by the same confidentiality obligations.

Referee reports, editorial recommendations, manuscript versions, and related communications shall not be published, quoted, redistributed, or made available to third parties, including on personal websites, academic repositories, or institutional platforms, without written consent from Leapman. These materials constitute protected editorial content and are exempt from disclosure under ordinary academic usage.

While Leapman endeavors to safeguard the anonymity of peer reviewers, it does not guarantee confidentiality in the event of legal compulsion. Should a valid court order, subpoena, or other binding legal instrument mandate disclosure, Leapman shall comply as required by law, and such disclosure shall not be deemed a breach of editorial policy.

In cases involving suspected scientific misconduct or publication ethics violations—including but not limited to plagiarism, data falsification, fabricated authorship, or undisclosed conflicts of interest—Leapman reserves the right to communicate relevant confidential records to appropriate institutional officials, funding entities, regulatory authorities, or affiliated journals. Such disclosures shall be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of investigation and shall be executed in accordance with applicable ethical and legal standards.

Leapman Journal maintains the integrity of the scientific record as a central editorial commitment. In accordance with established publication ethics, the journal issues formal post-publication updates when errors, ethical concerns, or other material issues are identified in published content. These updates apply to peer-reviewed articles, review articles, select editorial content, and associated supplementary materials.

All amendments are permanently linked to the original article in both HTML and PDF versions and are indexed in relevant databases. Leapman Journal participates in Crossmark, enabling readers to verify the current status of published content and access the full amendment history.

Author Correction

An Author Correction is published to address an error introduced by the author(s) that materially affects the clarity, reliability, or scientific interpretation of the article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.

Publisher Correction

A Publisher Correction is issued to correct an error introduced by the editorial or production process that impacts the accuracy or integrity of the published article.

Author Name Change

Authors who wish to update their name on previously published articles may submit a request under Leapman Journal’s inclusive name change policy. Requests are handled confidentially and may be implemented with or without public notification, at the author’s discretion.

Addendum

An Addendum may be issued to provide substantive information that was not available at the time of publication but is necessary for complete understanding of the article. Addenda do not alter the original article and are published separately with a permanent link.

Editor’s Note

An Editor’s Note is used to inform readers that concerns have been raised regarding a published article and that a formal review is ongoing. This notice appears in the HTML version only and is not indexed. It may be superseded by a subsequent update.

Editorial Expression of Concern

An Editorial Expression of Concern is published to alert readers to substantial issues that may affect the validity of a published article. This update is assigned a DOI, indexed, and permanently linked to the article. It may serve as a provisional or final notification, depending on the outcome of subsequent investigation.

Retraction

A Retraction is issued when the findings of a published article are no longer considered reliable due to error, misconduct, or violation of publication ethics. Retracted articles remain publicly accessible with a clear watermark and explanatory statement. The retraction notice is permanently linked to the article and typically indicates whether the authors agree with the retraction.

Technical and Procedural Considerations

When corrections affect core data, such as figures, tables, or statistical analyses, the correction notice will reproduce the original content where necessary to ensure transparency. In cases where the article cannot be updated directly (e.g., due to legacy formats), the correction or update will be published separately and bi-directionally linked.

Removal of Published Content

In exceptional cases, Leapman Journal may remove content from its platform when the content is deemed defamatory, infringes legal rights, violates privacy, or presents an immediate threat to health or safety. Removal may be permanent or temporary. Bibliographic metadata, including the title and authorship, is retained, accompanied by a public statement indicating the reason for removal.

Matters Arising

Post-publication correspondence that presents a substantial challenge, clarification, or replication of a published work may be submitted as a Matters Arising article. Submissions are subject to peer review. If accepted, they are typically published with a reply from the original authors. Submission criteria and review processes are described in the journal’s author guidelines.

Investigation of Post-Publication Issues

The journal reviews all credible concerns raised by authors, readers, or institutions regarding published content. Authors are given the opportunity to respond, and original data may be requested. Independent experts or institutional contacts may be consulted where appropriate.

Outcomes of such reviews may include a correction, addendum, editorial note, expression of concern, or retraction. In cases involving suspected misconduct, the journal may notify the author’s institution. The purpose of these actions is to ensure the integrity of the literature, not to assign personal blame. Institutional findings may be referenced where publicly available.

While the journal aims to resolve matters promptly, certain investigations may require extended timelines due to the complexity of the issues and the need for data verification. Interim notices may be issued to inform readers that a review is in progress.

Leapman Journal permits the posting of primary research manuscripts as preprints prior to peer review. A preprint is defined as the author’s version of a research manuscript that has not undergone formal peer review, deposited on a publicly accessible server. As established in Preprints for the life sciences (Science 352, 899–901; 2016), such posting does not constitute prior publication. The posting of a preprint at any stage, including during active peer review, does not affect editorial consideration and shall not be taken into account when determining the degree of conceptual advance presented by the submitted work.

Authors are required to disclose the existence of any preprint version at the time of initial submission or during the peer review process. Disclosure must include the preprint server, digital object identifier (DOI), public URL, and the applicable licensing terms. Following acceptance and publication, authors shall update the preprint record to include the final article citation and a direct link to the version of record on the Leapman Journal website.

Preprints may be cited in submissions under editorial consideration, provided that citations include the full list of authors, title, preprint server identifier, and a functioning DOI or permanent URL. Citations to preprints shall follow this format:

Babichev, S. A., Ries, J. & Lvovsky, A. I. Quantum scissors: teleportation of single-mode optical states by means of a nonlocal single photon. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208066 (2002).

Authors may select any preprint license, including those issued under Creative Commons. The applicable license shall govern the terms under which the preprint may be copied, redistributed, or otherwise reused. Authors are responsible for understanding the implications of their selected license, particularly in relation to reuse, adaptation, and citation practices. Guidance regarding appropriate licensing choices is available through reference materials developed by the ASAPbio Licensing Taskforce.

Authors may respond to media inquiries concerning preprints or conference presentations by providing factual explanation, context, or clarification of the underlying work. In such cases, public discussion of the research shall not prejudice editorial handling of the submission. However, authors must indicate that the work has not undergone peer review, that its findings are provisional, and that the conclusions remain subject to revision. Authors are advised that pre-publication media coverage may diminish or preclude coverage by other media outlets at the time of formal publication. Guidance on responsible communication of preprint-based research is available through documents developed by the ASAPbio Preprints in the Public Eye project.

Policies regarding author-accepted manuscripts (AAMs), including conditions for self-archiving and public release timelines, are set forth in the Rights and Permissions section of Leapman Journal.

Submissions that incorporate material previously published in conference proceedings shall be considered only where the manuscript represents a substantial extension of the prior work. A qualifying extension must include significant advancement in results, methodology, analysis, conclusions, or implications. The final determination of whether the manuscript satisfies this requirement shall rest solely with the editors. Authors must disclose the existence of the conference paper and provide an appropriate citation within the manuscript. Authors are further required to obtain all necessary permissions for the reuse of figures, tables, or other previously published material and must ensure proper attribution in accordance with the copyright status of the original source.

Leapman Journal maintains strict standards for the presentation and processing of image data. All submitted figures must accurately reflect the original source data and conform to established scientific and editorial norms. Any alteration that misrepresents, enhances, or suppresses information in a way that could mislead interpretation constitutes a breach of publication integrity.

Digital images submitted with a manuscript must be minimally processed. Adjustments are permitted only when they are applied uniformly across the entire image and do not alter the scientific meaning of the data. The final figure must retain the essential content of the original data. Authors are required to retain the unprocessed image data and all associated metadata after submission and publication. Editors may request access to these files at any stage of review or investigation. Failure to provide such materials when requested may result in editorial suspension or withdrawal of the submission.

All methods used for image acquisition and processing must be disclosed in the Methods section of the manuscript. This includes details of equipment, software, and settings. Any transformation that affects the data display, such as changes to brightness, contrast, color mapping, gamma adjustment, pseudo-coloring, or signal range compression, must be explicitly reported. Localized image manipulations, as well as the use of digital editing tools such as cloning or healing functions, are strictly prohibited.

If multiple images are juxtaposed within a single panel, the boundaries between them must be visually marked, and the figure legend must state the origin and conditions under which each image was obtained. Composited images must be scientifically justified and clearly annotated.

For research that includes electrophoretic gels and western blots, authors must submit unprocessed scans of all relevant gels and blots at the time of final acceptance. These will be published as Supplementary Information. Reorganized gel lanes must be visibly separated, and any non-adjacent lanes must be clearly demarcated. The figure legend must explain the rearrangement. Comparisons across different blots or gels are discouraged. Where unavoidable, the legend must state that the samples were derived from the same or parallel experiments conducted under identical conditions.

All loading controls must be obtained from the same blot as the target proteins. Where separate controls are used, the figure must identify them clearly. Cropped images must retain all relevant bands, and high-contrast presentations that obscure weaker signals are discouraged. Authors are expected to review all gel and blot figures for duplications, splicing, or inconsistencies and to confirm that processed figures match the corresponding unprocessed scans.

In microscopy-based research, any image processing must be applied consistently to the full image. Adjustments to individual color channels are permitted only in merged images and only when scientifically necessary. The use of pseudo-color, gamma correction, or non-linear transformations must be disclosed in the figure legend. Any image composed of data from multiple locations, time points, or optical fields must be identified as such, and the figure must make this composition visually clear.

The Methods section must provide a full description of imaging systems, including microscopes, lenses, detectors, filter sets, software, and acquisition conditions. Authors are encouraged to deposit original microscopy files along with complete metadata, including spatial and temporal resolution, bit depth, imaging conditions, and details of fluorophores or optical components. When color mapping or lookup tables are used, the exact mapping between data values and displayed colors must be described. If a linear full-range LUT is applied, this must be stated.

All submitted image data are subject to editorial review. The journal may screen figures for manipulation, either randomly or when concerns are raised. Authors must provide original data files upon request. Confirmed violations of image integrity standards may result in rejection, retraction, or notification of institutional authorities in accordance with Leapman Journal’s publication ethics policy.

All scholarly manuscripts submitted to Leapman Journal that fall within the editorial scope of original investigation, technical development, analysis, or scholarly critique shall be subject to external peer review unless otherwise specified. The peer review process is integral to the journal’s function and is administered under conditions of strict confidentiality and professional oversight. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that the content selected for publication meets the highest standards of academic integrity, methodological rigor, analytical precision, and relevance to the intended readership.

The categories of manuscript subject to peer review include, but are not limited to, original research articles, letters, matters arising, technical reports, reviews, perspectives, insights, and correspondence containing primary data or critical interpretation. Submissions such as corrections, editorials, and statements of concern may also be externally reviewed at the discretion of the editors. Content published outside of research formats, including policy commentaries or educational summaries, may be exempted from peer review unless technical elements warrant such evaluation.

Initial editorial screening is conducted for all submissions to assess their scope, technical soundness, conceptual novelty, and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts deemed not to meet these criteria may be declined without external peer review. Such decisions are made by editors and, where necessary, informed by informal consultation with specialists. Manuscripts not selected for review do not receive detailed comments and are not eligible for reconsideration unless substantively revised and resubmitted de novo.

Manuscripts selected for peer review are assigned to independent experts selected for their subject-specific expertise, review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editors may appoint additional reviewers when manuscripts raise statistical, ethical, or methodological complexities requiring specialized input. Reviewers are selected solely by the editors, who may consider but are not bound by author recommendations or exclusion requests.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submitted work for scientific validity, originality of results, rigor of experimental design, transparency of data reporting, adequacy of statistical analysis, accuracy of interpretation, and relevance to the field. Each report must clearly state whether the manuscript meets the threshold for publication and must identify any significant concerns that preclude acceptance or that must be resolved in revision. Reports must address specific aspects including the clarity and accessibility of the abstract, the soundness of the conclusions, the appropriate use of references, and whether the manuscript contains language that may be inflammatory or discriminatory. Particular attention should be paid to whether the presentation or discussion marginalizes or misrepresents particular groups, populations, or perspectives. Any concerns relating to inclusion, implicit bias, or inappropriate language must be documented in the report or raised directly with the editors.

Reviewers must identify any portion of the manuscript they are unable to assess due to limits in their expertise and must disclose any reliance on automated tools or generative technologies. The use of generative artificial intelligence tools to process, analyze, summarize, or evaluate any portion of the submitted manuscript is strictly prohibited. Reviewers who use AI-assisted tools for general writing support must not input manuscript content and must disclose any such use in their comments to the editors. Reviewers remain personally accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and professional tone of their reports, regardless of any technical aid utilized.

All peer review reports must be submitted through the secure online manuscript handling system. Reviewers are assigned specific deadlines and are expected to notify the editorial office in advance if those deadlines cannot be met. Editors may reassign reviews if delays are deemed detrimental to the editorial process. By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers commit to evaluating all subsequent versions of the manuscript submitted in response to their critique. However, revised manuscripts may not be returned for further review if, in the editors’ assessment, the authors have not made a substantive attempt to address the concerns raised.

All content submitted for review, including manuscript files, supplementary data, figures, protocols, and correspondence, shall be treated as confidential. Such material may not be retained, distributed, reproduced, or discussed with third parties without prior written approval from the editors. Peer reviewers may not involve colleagues, students, or collaborators in the review process unless permission is expressly granted. The obligation to maintain confidentiality continues in perpetuity and applies regardless of the manuscript’s final disposition.

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not determined by majority vote or consensus among reviewers. The editors are responsible for assessing the strength and credibility of the arguments presented, the scientific context, and the standards of the discipline. In cases of substantive disagreement between reviewers, the editors may seek clarification, request additional reports, or resolve the matter through internal editorial judgment. Editors are obligated to weigh reviewer critique seriously, especially technical criticism. However, they retain discretion to determine which feedback must be addressed as a condition of acceptance.

Reviewer identities are confidential. Reports are transmitted anonymously unless the reviewer voluntarily signs their report. If a signed report is transferred as part of a manuscript submission to another journal within the Leapman publishing group, the reviewer’s identity may remain associated with that report. No reviewer is required to reveal their identity, and no disclosure of identity will be made without explicit consent. The journal will neither confirm nor deny the identity of reviewers in response to author inquiry. Authors are prohibited from attempting to determine or confront peer reviewers. Any attempt to breach reviewer confidentiality may result in sanctions, including retraction or reporting to institutional authorities.

Manuscripts transferred between affiliated journals may carry with them all prior reviewer reports and editorial correspondence to facilitate efficient evaluation and avoid duplicative peer review. Editors at the receiving journal are not bound by prior decisions but may use transferred materials to inform their own editorial process. The confidentiality of reviewers and editorial evaluations is maintained throughout the transfer process. Where the same reviewers are invited to re-evaluate a transferred manuscript, their prior evaluations may be used in full or in part to inform new decisions.

Some Leapman Journal titles may offer double-anonymized peer review. In such cases, authors are responsible for removing identifying information from all submitted materials, including acknowledgments, affiliations, metadata, and file properties. A checklist is provided to guide authors through the anonymization process. When double-anonymized review is selected, author identities remain undisclosed to reviewers throughout the consideration process.

Selected Leapman journals support transparent peer review in which anonymous reviewer reports, author rebuttal letters, and editorial decision letters are published online as a peer review file. This process does not include confidential comments to the editors or communications deemed inappropriate for public dissemination. Transparent peer review is implemented only with author consent at the point of manuscript acceptance and is not applied retroactively to content considered under non-disclosing review policies. Peer review materials from previous submissions to other journals are not carried forward for public release unless originating from within Leapman and subject to an identical policy framework.

Peer reviewers must evaluate whether any statistical methods used are appropriate, whether all figures include clearly defined error bars, whether p-values and other inferential metrics are transparently reported, and whether experimental data is described in sufficient detail to permit reproduction. Any methodological ambiguity or analytical deficiency should be documented explicitly. Reviewers are encouraged to recommend specific improvements, including additional data or clarification of experimental logic, where such suggestions could materially strengthen the submission.

Where a reviewer believes a manuscript raises concerns involving ethical conduct, research integrity, data falsification, or publication malpractice, the matter must be referred directly to the editors in a confidential comment. Editors may suspend review or publication and initiate an investigation according to the journal’s misconduct policy. In cases where the content poses potential security risks, public health threats, or broader societal implications, editors may seek additional review from ethical or security advisors prior to making a publication determination.

All communications between authors, editors, and reviewers are part of the formal editorial record and are subject to the same standards of confidentiality and professional conduct. Peer reviewers must not cite or reference any portion of the manuscript prior to its formal publication and are prohibited from using any material under review for personal or professional gain. Violation of this policy may result in removal from the reviewer database, notification of affiliated institutions, and referral to external oversight bodies.

Leapman Journal affirms the value of peer review as a discipline-bound, expert-driven process that strengthens the scientific record, ensures the reliability of published claims, and promotes the ethical dissemination of knowledge. The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of transparency, accountability, and editorial independence in all aspects of its review procedures.

Leapman Journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism, fabrication, and other forms of publication misconduct. All manuscripts submitted for consideration must represent original work by the authors and must appropriately acknowledge the contributions, ideas, results, or text derived from the work of others. Any instance of unattributed copying, misrepresentation of authorship, or duplicate publication is considered a serious breach of scholarly integrity and may result in rejection, correction, or retraction of the published record.

Plagiarism is defined as the misappropriation of intellectual content, whether in the form of ideas, language, data, or analytical results, without clear and unambiguous attribution to the original source. This includes, but is not limited to, verbatim reproduction of large blocks of text, paraphrasing without citation, or misrepresentation of another author’s contributions as one’s own. As defined by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, plagiarism may involve the theft of intellectual property or the substantial unattributed reproduction of another’s work. Manuscripts containing such violations will not be considered for publication and, if discovered post-publication, will be subject to formal editorial correction or withdrawal.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all quotations, paraphrases, and textual reuse—whether derived from others or from their own previously published work—are properly cited. The unacknowledged reuse of text from an author’s own prior publications constitutes self-plagiarism or “text recycling.” In such cases, even when the intellectual content is the author’s own, the failure to cite or distinguish previously published material can create a misleading impression of novelty or singular contribution. When such reuse is necessary, clear referencing must accompany the reused content, and such sections must be presented in a way that does not compromise the integrity of the work or its presentation as original research.

Duplicate or redundant publication is defined as the reuse of substantial portions of one’s own previously published material without appropriate disclosure, citation, or justification. This includes the submission of the same or closely overlapping content to more than one journal, as well as the addition of minimal new data to material already published. The publication of derivative papers that fragment one coherent study into multiple submissions, often referred to as “salami slicing,” is likewise discouraged. In cases where overlap is identified, editors will assess whether the main conclusions and implications of the submission are substantially distinct from prior publications and whether the duplication materially undermines the scientific contribution or the clarity of the published record.

Manuscripts that cite unpublished data must do so with the explicit permission of the data originators. Authors are required to confirm that they have obtained the necessary authorization to cite or discuss any unpublished findings, data sets, or communications. When using licensed third-party datasets, authors are required to submit a written statement confirming compliance with all terms and conditions set forth by the data originator.

All discussion of previously published work must clearly and accurately reflect the contributions of that work to the current submission. This includes attribution of conceptual, technical, methodological, and interpretive advances. Citation must not be limited to perfunctory acknowledgement but must reflect the actual intellectual lineage and contribution of prior studies. Failure to properly represent the scope and substance of earlier publications may be construed as negligent citation or implicit misappropriation.

All submissions to Leapman Journal must be original and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Concurrent submission of substantially similar work to another journal is prohibited. Authors who have submitted related work to other venues, or who have manuscripts in press at the time of submission to Leapman, must disclose these materials to the editors by uploading them in full at the time of submission and identifying the relationship in the cover letter. If authors submit related material to other journals after the original Leapman submission, they must promptly notify the editorial office and provide a written disclosure of the relationship. Failure to disclose concurrent or prior submissions constitutes a violation of this policy and may result in rejection or withdrawal of the manuscript.

Submissions that contain material previously published in a Ph.D. dissertation or institutional thesis will be considered, provided that such prior publication complies with the policies of the degree-granting institution and that the submitted manuscript includes substantial new analysis or presentation of the data. Authors must disclose the existence of such prior public availability in the cover letter and ensure that the thesis is appropriately cited.

Authors are permitted to post preprints on recognized public servers prior to submission. The submission of work that has been made available as a preprint is acceptable provided that the content has not been formally published in a peer-reviewed journal. Meeting abstracts, presentations, or posters may be referenced and cited where appropriate. Abstracts that have appeared in conference proceedings or on digital platforms may be included in submissions to Leapman, but must be referenced in the cover letter and uploaded as part of the submission package.

If a manuscript contains any material previously published under copyright by another publisher or third party, including figures, tables, or illustrations, authors must provide written documentation that permission has been obtained for reuse. All such permissions must be secured prior to final acceptance. The journal presumes that by submitting a manuscript, authors affirm that they have secured full publishing rights to all included materials and that no part of the submission infringes upon the rights of any third party.

All submitted content is screened for potential textual overlap using professional similarity-checking software. Leapman Journal participates in industry-standard similarity detection through services such as Similarity Check, which systematically screen submitted manuscripts for substantial textual overlap. Editors reserve the right to investigate any case of suspected plagiarism or duplication and to act accordingly based on the extent, context, and intent of the identified issues. In cases where plagiarism is confirmed post-publication, editorial actions may include the issuance of a formal correction, an editorial statement of concern, or a complete retraction. The decision will reflect the degree of misconduct, the impact on the scientific record, and the ethical responsibilities of authorship.

Leapman Journal maintains a strict media embargo policy to ensure the integrity of scientific communication and to facilitate accurate public reporting of peer-reviewed research. Authors and potential authors are not permitted to solicit or engage in media coverage related to manuscripts submitted to the journal until the official publication date has been confirmed. Any permitted interactions with the press must occur no earlier than one week prior to the confirmed publication date and must be conducted in full compliance with Leapman’s embargo conditions.

Official press releases are issued and distributed under embargo to credentialed members of the media. These press materials summarize forthcoming content and provide links to the full-text version of accepted articles, together with supplementary editorial material where applicable. Corresponding authors’ names and institutional affiliations are made available to journalists in advance, along with approved images or data supplied by the authors. All distributed content, including press releases and underlying manuscripts, remains embargoed until the date and time explicitly stated by the Leapman editorial office.

Manuscripts deemed to have exceptional news value may be highlighted in official press summaries prepared by the editorial team in collaboration with the communications office. Authors of such papers may receive inquiries from journalists during the embargo period. Authors are expected to cooperate with the press to ensure factual and balanced coverage of their work, but must strictly adhere to the embargo restrictions and coordinate any institutional press activity through Leapman’s editorial communications office.

The media embargo policy is designed to ensure fair, simultaneous, and accurate access to peer-reviewed content by the scientific community and the public. The embargo ensures that journalists base their reporting on the final, peer-reviewed version of record and that media interactions reflect the conclusive state of the research. The policy further protects authors from misrepresentation of preliminary data and upholds the credibility of coverage through the timing and consistency of public release.

Premature media dissemination undermines the peer review process and removes the opportunity for journalists to obtain informed commentary from independent experts in the field. Violations of Leapman’s embargo terms by members of the press may result in immediate removal from future press communication lists and revocation of pre-publication access.

Leapman Journal affirms that conference presentations and the public posting of preprints do not constitute prior publication. Open scholarly communication through community preprint servers, scientific meetings, institutional repositories, or personal academic platforms is permitted and encouraged. Media engagement related to such public disclosures is permissible, provided that authors make it explicitly clear that the work has not undergone peer review, that the findings are provisional, and that the conclusions are subject to change.

Such media coverage shall not influence the editorial evaluation of a submitted manuscript, nor will it be construed as prejudicial to the submission’s eligibility. However, authors and their affiliated institutions are advised that early exposure of preprint-related content may reduce or preempt subsequent media interest upon formal publication. Where such publicity occurs, authors must refrain from disclosing the status or details of the editorial or peer review process.

Leapman Journal requires that all public discussions of accepted papers refer to the final peer-reviewed version, and authors are advised to ensure that media coverage does not precede the public release of the official publication. Reporters covering preprints are expected to clearly indicate that the manuscript has not been peer reviewed and that any conclusions drawn are provisional.

All press-related inquiries regarding embargo policies, permissible disclosures, or coordinated publicity should be directed to the Leapman editorial communications office. Compliance with these procedures is required of all authors, journalists, and institutional media contacts.

Leapman affirms that the integrity of scientific publication requires that others be able to verify, reproduce, and extend the findings reported in its journals. As a condition of publication, authors are required to make all materials, data, code, and associated protocols promptly available without unjustified restrictions. Any limitations on availability must be disclosed to editors at the time of submission and clearly stated in the manuscript.
Post-publication, readers who encounter non-compliance with these provisions are encouraged to contact the editor-in-chief. If resolution cannot be achieved through editorial channels, Leapman may refer the case to the authors’ funding institution and may issue a formal statement of concern or correction linked to the original publication.
Reporting Requirements
Leapman requires compliance with reporting standards to enhance transparency and reproducibility across all areas of research. Prior to peer review, the corresponding author must complete a policy compliance checklist. For manuscripts under review, all relevant reporting summary documents must be provided.
In the life sciences, behavioral and social sciences, and ecological and environmental sciences, authors must submit a structured reporting summary detailing essential elements of experimental and analytical design. This document is assessed by editors and reviewers and is published with accepted articles.
In designated areas of the physical sciences, including solar cells and studies involving lasing claims, authors must provide a reporting summary specifying methods of characterization and analytical validation. These documents must be submitted at the initial stage and are published with the manuscript. Authors must use Adobe Reader to complete these forms due to embedded functionalities. Reference-only versions are available for guidance.
Leapman supports initiatives to advance transparency in methods reporting. All templates are offered under open licenses and may be reused with attribution. Further statistical reporting guidance is available via Leapman’s author support resources.
For geological, archaeological, and palaeontological research, authors must disclose full provenance of all materials, and confirm compliance with local regulations and permit requirements. Materials obtained from protected sites must be supported by appropriate authorizations. Type specimens must be deposited in recognized public repositories with accession identifiers, and 3D scans are encouraged where possible.
Availability of Data
All research articles must include a data availability statement. This statement must clearly describe the conditions under which the dataset supporting the findings can be accessed. Authors must deposit data in public discipline-specific repositories or, where unavailable, in general repositories such as Zenodo, Dryad, or Figshare. Use of supplementary files for large datasets is discouraged.
Mandatory deposition applies to certain data types. Accession codes must be cited in the manuscript. Editors and reviewers must have access to all supporting data during the review process. Restrictions must be discussed at submission and may result in rejection if they compromise editorial assessment.
Authors are responsible for obtaining necessary permissions and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. Data availability statements must include persistent identifiers for public datasets and must distinguish between primary and referenced data.
For clinical trials, statements must comply with ICMJE recommendations. Authors must specify whether de-identified individual participant data will be shared, what supporting documents will be available, the time and duration of availability, and access conditions.
Where data are subject to controlled access, authors must explain the rationale, describe access conditions in detail, provide contact information, and cite any data use agreement. Restrictions that impede reproducibility may lead to rejection.
Use of third-party data must be disclosed. Authors must identify the provider, explain any limitations, and ensure compliance during peer review. Proprietary data must be available under the stated terms for post-publication verification.
All datasets deposited in repositories must be formally cited in the reference list following recognized data citation formats.
Availability of Materials
Authors must make unique research materials available under fair conditions. Any limitations, including commercial distribution, must be disclosed in the manuscript. The corresponding author bears responsibility for materials availability.
Leapman endorses the use of Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) to ensure persistent identification of key reagents, model organisms, and tools. Authors must report RRIDs where available.
Authors introducing new chemical compounds must provide detailed structures, synthesis protocols, and characterization data. Biological materials should be deposited in public repositories with accession numbers cited.
Authors of new cell lines must report source, authentication method, and results. Any restrictions must be disclosed. Authentication and mycoplasma testing are required, and use of contaminated or misidentified lines must be scientifically justified.
Availability and Peer Review of Code and Algorithms
Custom code or algorithms essential to the reported results must be made available to editors and reviewers. Manuscripts lacking access to necessary code may be declined.
All submissions must include a Code Availability statement detailing repository location, license terms, and access conditions. Code should be deposited in DOI-issuing repositories such as Zenodo or Code Ocean and cited formally.
Where code is central to the manuscript, it will undergo peer review. Authors must submit code for evaluation and ensure all details are disclosed.
Experimental Protocols
Authors are encouraged to make protocols publicly available in platforms that assign DOIs and support citation. Protocols.io is recommended. DOIs or stable links must be included in the manuscript.
Pre-registration
Leapman supports pre-registration of study protocols and analysis plans. Registered Reports, involving peer review prior to data collection, are accepted in selected journals. Documentation of pre-registration must be included at submission.
Replication Studies
Leapman welcomes rigorously conducted replication studies that substantively inform existing findings. Replication studies are evaluated using the same editorial criteria as original research.
Clinical Trials
Authors reporting phase II or III randomized trials must adhere to CONSORT guidelines. Prognostic studies involving tumor markers should follow REMARK. Clinical trials must be registered prior to enrollment in a registry that satisfies ICMJE or WHO criteria. The registration number must be included in the manuscript. Trials with primary pharmacokinetic aims are exempt. Human biospecimen reporting must meet BRISQ Tier 1 standards.

Leapman affirms its commitment to the highest standards of research ethics, grounded in the principles of scholarly freedom, intellectual responsibility, and the imperative to minimize harm. Authors, editors, and reviewers must ensure that all research conducted under the scope of Leapman journals respects the dignity, rights, and safety of human and non-human subjects, upholds international ethical guidelines, and is presented with integrity, transparency, and sensitivity.

Scholarly Freedom and Scholarly Responsibility

Leapman upholds the fundamental right of researchers to pursue and communicate scientific inquiry free from censorship or institutional repression. This principle of academic freedom exists in tandem with an obligation to avoid foreseeable harm, maintain intellectual honesty, and ensure that scholarly communication does not contribute to the erosion of individual rights, public welfare, or ethical standards.

Benefits and Harms of Research

Research must be conducted with respect for all involved, including human participants, related individuals and communities, non-human life, ecosystems, and cultural heritage. Harm may arise directly through the research process—for example, injury to participants, suffering of animals, or environmental degradation—or indirectly through publication, such as stigmatization of marginalized groups or unintended policy consequences.

Research should maximize societal and intellectual benefit while minimizing risks. These principles of beneficence and non-maleficence are central to ethical frameworks including the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and international guidelines for health and social sciences. While the advancement of knowledge is a public good, the potential for harm may outweigh the value of certain research or its publication. Editors may therefore consult independent experts and may, in some cases, decline to publish, or subsequently retract, correct, or amend published material where the risk of harm is judged to be significant.

Research Involving Animals or Humans

All authors submitting manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must complete Leapman’s editorial policy checklist to confirm compliance with institutional, national, and international ethical standards.

Animal Research

Submissions reporting research involving live vertebrates or higher invertebrates must confirm that procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant regulatory frameworks. Authors must identify the approving institutional or licensing committee and provide any required reference numbers. Manuscripts must report animal characteristics relevant to the study outcomes and include housing and husbandry conditions where applicable. Leapman encourages adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines and recommends consultation of the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) for best practices.

Research with Human Participants, Their Data, or Biological Material

Studies involving human participants must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki. The approving ethics committee’s name and reference number must be provided. If the study was granted an ethics exemption, authors must identify the committee responsible for the exemption and state the grounds for approval. All manuscripts must include an explicit statement affirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Research on Human Populations

Studies that involve populations classified by race, ethnicity, national or social origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, political opinion, age, disease status, disability, or socioeconomic status must clearly describe the basis for such categorization. Authors are required to define each group in terms of the study protocol, explain whether definitions were determined by participants, researchers, or funders, and justify the use of such groupings.

Authors must address how confounding variables were controlled and reflect on their own positionality when interpreting results involving groups to which they do not belong. The implications of classification choices must be considered carefully, and researchers must minimize the risk of misinterpretation or harm to studied populations. All manuscripts must use inclusive, respectful, and non-stigmatizing language. Stereotypes, cultural assumptions, or derogatory terminology are not acceptable. Unless directly relevant to the research question, demographic attributes should be omitted. Authors writing in English should consult the American Psychological Association’s guidelines on bias-free language.

Editors may require revisions, corrections, or in extreme cases, refuse publication or retract manuscripts if content:

– Assumes the superiority or inferiority of any group
– Undermines the dignity of individuals or groups
– Includes explicit or implicit disparagement
– Presents a singular privileged perspective as universally applicable

Race, Ethnicity, and Racism

Race and ethnicity are sociopolitical constructs, not biological classifications. Manuscripts must not use these categories as proxies for variables such as income or education. Researchers must disclose who determined classification terms (participants, researchers, or third parties) and how classification was performed.

Biomedical studies must distinguish genetic ancestry from race and ethnicity. Race/ethnicity may be relevant for studying health disparities but are not valid surrogates for biological mechanisms. When genetic ancestry data are unavailable and race/ethnicity are used, this must be justified with care and clarity. Racism is scientifically unfounded and ethically impermissible. Editors may decline, retract, or correct manuscripts with content that perpetuates racial or ethnic bias, using the same evaluative criteria outlined above.

Sex, Gender, and Sexual Orientation

Leapman supports the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines and expects authors to apply these principles when relevant. Sex (biological traits) and gender (social roles and identity) must be clearly distinguished. Authors should state whether participants’ sex and gender were self-identified or assigned, and describe the methodology used.

Studies should report disaggregated data by sex and gender when collected, with consent for reporting individual-level data. Disaggregated results must be available in source data or study supplements. If sex- and gender-based analyses were pre-specified, results should be reported regardless of outcome. Post hoc analyses should be avoided if the study lacks statistical power. If such analyses were not performed, authors must explain why in the reporting summary.

Working definitions must be provided for:

– Sex: biological characteristics including chromosomes, anatomy, hormones
– Gender: socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities
– Gender identity: internal sense of gender
– Gender presentation: external expression through behavior and appearance

Sexist, misogynistic, or anti-LGBTQ+ content is unacceptable. Editors may seek ethical review, request revisions, or decline manuscripts that perpetuate such content.

Studies Involving Vulnerable Groups

Studies involving vulnerable populations—where coercion is possible or consent may not be fully informed—will be subject to enhanced editorial oversight. The editor may refer manuscripts to a dedicated internal ethics committee. Authors must secure consent for any personally identifiable biomedical, clinical, or biometric data and provide supporting documentation if requested.

Publishing Images of Human Research Participants

When publishing identifiable images of research participants, authors must confirm that written informed consent for publication has been obtained. Anonymization methods such as black bars across the eyes are not acceptable. In certain cases, editors may request original consent documentation. Images without appropriate consent will be removed.

Clinical Trials

All interventional trials must be registered prior to enrollment. Registration must occur in a WHO-recognized database such as ClinicalTrials.gov or ISRCTN. Trial registration numbers must be listed in the abstract and methods section.

Reports of Phase II and III randomized controlled trials must comply with CONSORT guidelines. Failure to do so may delay review. Prognostic studies using tumor markers should follow REMARK recommendations.

Human Biospecimens

Descriptions of human biospecimens must follow the BRISQ guidelines, including Tier 1 data fields. This ensures sufficient transparency about sample collection, processing, and usage.

Human Transplantation Studies

Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that no organs or tissues were sourced from prisoners. Authors must describe the institutional channels through which materials were obtained. For retrospective studies, authors must state whether consent was obtained or waived by an ethics board.

Studies Involving Human Embryos, Gametes, and Stem Cells

Research involving human embryos, gametes, embryonic stem cells, or clinical applications of stem cells must comply with all applicable regulations. The manuscript must identify the ethics committees approving the work, confirm informed consent from donors or recipients, and describe donation terms. Editors may request copies of approvals and redacted consent forms.

Authors are encouraged to consult the ISSCR 2016 Guidelines. Editors may seek external expert advice, especially when manuscripts report modifications of the human germline. Leapman has established an internal monitoring group composed of senior editorial and policy leadership to evaluate such submissions.

Dual Use Research of Concern

Manuscripts containing information that could be misused to pose threats to public health, safety, agriculture, or national security will undergo dual-use risk assessment. If the risk outweighs the benefit, publication will be declined. Already published material may be corrected or withdrawn.

Authors must comply with all institutional and national dual-use regulations. If the manuscript contains potentially harmful material, authors must describe containment measures and disclose oversight approvals. All authors must complete the dual-use section of the Leapman reporting summary. Editors may refer such manuscripts to a dedicated editorial monitoring group with relevant biosecurity expertise.

Editorial Oversight and Ethics Declarations

Leapman supports active editorial responsibility in safeguarding ethical publication standards. Editors are authorized to seek external ethics guidance, request manuscript revisions, and in cases of substantive ethical conflict, decline or retract a manuscript. Leapman journals maintain historical documentation of policy decisions and provide transparency around ethical publishing debates through formal editorials and public statements.

Expanded Requirements for Dual Use Research of Concern

Authors must be aware of dual-use implications of their work and are expected to actively consider how their research findings, tools, data, or technologies might be intentionally misused outside the scientific context. Examples include threats to biosecurity, the environment, public safety, or national infrastructure. Where relevant, authors must disclose whether their work is subject to institutional or national dual-use oversight and provide documentation of approval where required. If a study involves potentially hazardous biological or chemical agents, authors must describe containment strategies and biosafety protocols in the manuscript.

Manuscripts that contain content of dual-use concern will be evaluated with heightened scrutiny. Editors may consult external reviewers with domain expertise in biosafety or national security. The risk of potential misuse may result in the manuscript being declined or in the imposition of additional pre-publication requirements. Editors reserve the right to request redactions, contextual disclaimers, or modifications that mitigate the risk of harm. Already published articles may be corrected, amended, or removed should unanticipated threats arise.

Leapman maintains an internal editorial oversight group tasked with reviewing submissions raising dual-use concerns. This group includes senior publishing executives and policy specialists who may recommend consultation with external bioethics or security advisors. The assessment process balances the public good of scientific advancement with the ethical imperative to prevent foreseeable misuse.

Editorial Commentary and Historical Oversight

Leapman recognizes that ethical standards evolve alongside scientific progress. In line with this, Leapman will regularly publish editorial statements clarifying the application of ethics policies in response to emerging research practices, societal developments, or evolving international frameworks. These declarations serve to uphold transparency and reinforce editorial accountability.

Published research that raises unanticipated ethical or societal concerns may be subject to post-publication review. Where necessary, Leapman editors may issue public editorial notices, expressions of concern, or formal retractions in accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Leapman draws on the historical precedents of major scholarly publishers who have published editorials concerning sensitive topics such as stem cell research, genetic manipulation, animal experimentation, and dual-use technologies. The editorial team is committed to reflecting on similar issues as they arise and will document Leapman’s ethical position through openly accessible editorial communications.

Leapman affirms that open science and editorial rigor are not mutually exclusive. The free exchange of ideas must be exercised with responsibility. As part of its ongoing commitment to ethical publishing, Leapman maintains a record of significant policy developments and actively engages in scholarly dialogue on the boundaries of responsible research dissemination.

Leapman is committed to ensuring that its licensing and self-archiving policies align with the requirements of major research funders, institutional open access mandates, and best practices for the responsible dissemination of scholarly knowledge. This section outlines the terms under which authors may license their work, share preprints, archive accepted manuscripts, and comply with open access regulations.

Author Licensing Policy

Leapman does not require authors of original research articles to transfer copyright as a condition of publication. Instead, authors grant Leapman an exclusive license to publish the article, thereby retaining the right to reuse the content in their own subsequent works, including books and collections, without seeking prior permission. For commissioned works and non-primary content such as reviews, perspectives, commentaries, and editorials, copyright is retained by Leapman. This applies to all content published in Leapman-affiliated review titles or other formats where authorship is by editorial invitation.

Comprehensive guidance regarding reprint and reuse permissions for Leapman articles is made available through Leapman’s rights and licensing platform, and authors are encouraged to consult this resource prior to any reuse of published material.

Open Access Licensing and Creative Commons Options

Articles published open access in Leapman journals are made available under a Creative Commons license, as selected by the author at the time of acceptance. The available license types include the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY), which permits unrestricted reuse and adaptation, including for commercial purposes, provided proper attribution is given to the authors, as well as the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits non-commercial redistribution with attribution but prohibits modification and commercial reuse.

Authors are advised to consult their funder’s open access policy to ensure compliance with licensing requirements. Leapman also supports Creative Commons license versions recognized by intergovernmental organizations where required by the author’s institutional employer. Further information and recommendations on open access licensing and copyright can be found in Leapman’s open access policy resource center.

Preprints and Public Sharing

Leapman encourages the posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on public servers, institutional websites, and other recognized platforms prior to formal peer review. A preprint is defined as an author’s version of a manuscript that has not yet undergone editorial review or peer assessment, and which is made publicly accessible in an open repository. Authors may post preprints at any stage, including during the submission and peer review process, without it constituting prior publication. Such posting will not affect editorial evaluation, and preprint versions are not considered in assessing the novelty of a submission.

Upon submission to Leapman, authors are expected to disclose whether a preprint has been posted and must provide the relevant repository URL, DOI, and license terms. After publication, it is the author’s responsibility to update the preprint with a full publication citation, including DOI and a link to the version of record on the Leapman journal website. Authors may select the license of their choice for preprints, including any Creative Commons license. The selection of a license will determine the permitted uses and redistributions of the preprint. Authors are encouraged to consult licensing guidance developed by open science consortia to ensure informed decision-making.

Authors may cite preprints in the reference list of submitted manuscripts, provided full citation details are included and the status of the preprint is clearly identified. Leapman affirms the scholarly value of preprints as part of the scientific record, though they are considered provisional in nature.

When engaging with the media regarding preprints, authors must make it clear that the manuscript has not been peer reviewed and that findings are subject to revision. Leapman does not discourage reasonable explanations or contextualization of preprints in public communication. However, researchers are advised that media coverage prior to formal publication may limit subsequent press opportunities. Authors are encouraged to review guidance developed by scientific communication initiatives to ensure responsible public engagement with unreviewed findings.

Self-Archiving of Accepted Manuscripts

Leapman permits authors whose articles are accepted via the subscription publication route to self-archive the author’s accepted manuscript (AAM) on personal webpages, institutional repositories, or funder-mandated archives, six months after the date of formal publication. The AAM is defined as the final version of the manuscript accepted for publication, inclusive of all author revisions but prior to typesetting or copyediting.

All archived AAMs must include the full citation of the published article, including the DOI, and must link prominently to the version of record on the Leapman journal website. Where a journal publishes content ahead of print (e.g., online first publication), the six-month embargo period begins on the date the content is made publicly available online.

Accepted manuscripts archived under this policy may not be distributed under a Creative Commons license. Authors must observe the terms of use outlined by Leapman and its publishing partners, including Springer Nature, regarding the redistribution and reuse of subscription-content AAMs.

Self-Archiving of Open Access Articles

For articles published under a Creative Commons open access license, authors may immediately deposit the published version in any repository of their choosing, provided that the deposit includes a link to the official version of record on the Leapman journal website. This ensures proper attribution and preservation of the scholarly record.

Leapman regards the version hosted on its journal platform as the authoritative version of record. Therefore, all self-archived versions must clearly indicate that they are not the publisher’s final version unless they link directly to the official publication.

Conditions of Use for Archived Manuscripts

For articles published through Leapman or its publishing partners and subsequently archived in public repositories, the following use conditions apply. Use of archived AAMs is permitted for academic research purposes, including text and data mining, provided that such uses are non-commercial in nature. Authors and users may not redistribute full articles or substantial excerpts for commercial benefit or as part of a commercial enterprise. Republishing the archived content in full, in print or electronically, is prohibited without explicit permission.

Limited quotations from the text, properly cited, are permitted. In the case of text mining, only isolated sentences or segments up to a defined threshold may be extracted; full paragraphs or figures may not be reused without prior authorization. All uses must include a direct citation with the article’s DOI and a link to the official version of record. The integrity of the work and the authors’ moral rights must be respected at all times.

Where an archived manuscript includes content licensed from third parties, users must seek separate permission from those rightsholders before reuse. Any use of Leapman-archived material is at the user’s own risk, and Leapman assumes no liability for misuse of content outside the defined permissions.