AUTHORSHIP GUIDELINES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND VERIFICATION

In the realm of academic writing, establishing authorship guarantees and liability is vital. Authors, upon manuscript submission, affirm their individual contributions to the research, encompassing any aspect or extent. This participation entails confirming their involvement in the authorial team and granting approval for the manuscript, acknowledging its complete content, and confirming the act of submission to the editor.

Inclusion as an author in a manuscript is reserved for those who have made a substantial contribution to the research. A significant contribution is defined by fulfilling at least three of the following criteria: conceptualizing and modeling the research, gathering and analyzing data, drafting the manuscript, performing an extensive literary review, statistically processing acquired data, securing funding, providing administrative and technical support, or overseeing the experiment. Authors are encouraged to set their own criteria for substantial research contribution, selecting at least one of the three required elements.

Individuals assisting in the research and manuscript preparation, albeit ineligible for authorship, are acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

In manuscripts with multiple authors, a corresponding author is designated through internal consensus among the authors. This individual assumes responsibility as the primary point of contact with the editorial office throughout the manuscript's processing. The corresponding author is personally accountable for the accuracy of all information submitted to the editorial office, validating each co-author's affiliation. They continue to liaise with co-authors post-publication, addressing any arising concerns and ensuring timely resolution. Any alterations to the authorial team must receive unanimous approval and confirmation from all co-authors. The final approved version of the authorial group is solidified before manuscript submission and documented in the License Agreement. The editorial board refrains from mediating authorship disputes, pre- or post-publication.

The corresponding author is responsible for providing all documents in compliance with the editorial office's requisites. Editors retain the right to question the authenticity of the authorial group, particularly if suspicions arise during manuscript processing.

Editorial doubts may manifest, notably in cases where:

• The number of co-authors does not align with the manuscript's scope, focus, research type, or significance of results.
• Co-authors lack professional competence relevant to the journal's field of study or subject matter, as indicated by academic qualifications and scientific interests.
• The literature analysis references a narrow range of individuals.

Reviewer concerns may arise, particularly if:

• The corresponding author provides delayed or inadequate responses to the reviewer's inquiries, comments, or clarifications.
• Convincing arguments regarding the evidential aspects of the scientific research in response to comments are lacking.

It's imperative to clarify that contributions from Large Language Models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, are insufficient for establishing authorship. Furthermore, such contributions cannot be affirmed in the License Agreement, a mandatory publication document. If an LLM was nonetheless utilized in the study, this should be disclosed in the "Materials and Methods" section, substantiated by scientific rationale.

Any doubts from the editorial board or reviewers trigger a series of actions, chosen based on the extent of doubt and the corresponding author's response. The editorial team follows COPE recommendations on "How to recognize potential authorship problems" when determining appropriate actions. Alterations to the authorial composition for a published article require compelling arguments from the authorial team or other stakeholders, validated through an internal investigation by the editorial board. This investigation includes verifying the credibility of the provided arguments or complaints and engaging with the affiliated institution or research location.