Submitting to or engaging with a journal published by the Baishideng Publishing Group (BPG), whether as an author, reviewer, or editorial staff member, means entrusting us with your work. As such, we place scientific rigor and ethical integrity at the core of everything we do. All BPG journals uphold editorial, academic, and professional independence as a fundamental principle. The Editor-in-Chief of each BPG journal has overall responsibility for academic quality control and editorial oversight, may assign manuscripts to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member for initial or final academic assistance when appropriate, and makes or confirms the final academic decision. We are committed to ensuring that our management team, editorial staff, authors, and reviewers adhere to the guiding documents established by our Editorial Office, which are informed by the principles and guidance of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including the Guidelines for Authors, the Peer-Review Process, the Editorial Process, and Publication Ethics. All submitted manuscripts must comply with scientific research standards and ethical requirements. This mandatory policy encompasses data authenticity, absence of plagiarism, compliance with ethical review, academic integrity, and rigorous manuscript preparation standards.

BPG journals operate a closed-loop manuscript quality-control and editorial decision-making mechanism comprising independent peer review, staged and repeated artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted assessment, targeted author revision, separate Scientific Editor verification of academic quality and editorial compliance, and a final academic decision made or confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief. The mechanism follows the principles of independent expert evaluation, AI-assisted issue identification, author responsibility for revision, human verification by Scientific Editors, and independent final decision-making by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript within their fields of expertise, including its novelty, scientific significance, research design, methodological rigor, appropriateness of statistical analysis, reliability and internal consistency of the reported results, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported. The AI assessment system applies standardized, manuscript-type-specific criteria to assist in identifying correctable academic-quality and editorial-compliance issues. AI does not make editorial decisions, and its output must not be used as the sole basis for any editorial decision. Authors conduct targeted revisions and remain fully responsible for the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of the research data and scholarly content, as well as for the accuracy and adequacy of their revision explanations. Scientific Editors assigned to academic-quality verification and editorial-compliance verification respectively examine the manuscript and related records, review peer-review comments, verify AI findings and author revisions, identify unresolved or new issues, and provide separately documented editorial recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief weighs the complete record, resolves differing views when necessary, and makes or confirms the final academic decision of acceptance, further revision, or rejection.

AI Manuscript Quality Assessment evaluates the scientific and reporting quality of the manuscript against standardized criteria. This function cannot replace peer review, Scientific Editor verification, or the Editor-in-Chief’s academic judgment. For manuscripts proceeding through revision, the first and second AI Manuscript Quality Assessments form standard staged checks; a third or subsequent targeted reassessment may be conducted when specific issues remain.

To ensure accountability and traceability, the editorial record retains the relevant peer-review reports, AI reports, Scientific Editor verification results, author responses and revised versions, conflict or escalation records, and the rationale supporting each editorial recommendation or decision. AI-generated findings are distinguishable from findings verified by a human editor.

All manuscripts submitted to journals published by BPG (including those authored by BPG editorial staff or editors and excepting some Correction and Retraction Note manuscripts), whether invited or unsolicited, undergo a structured editorial process. When a manuscript is authored by an editor, editorial staff member, close colleague, family member, or another person with whom a relevant conflict exists, the conflicted individual must take no part in reviewer selection, manuscript evaluation, correspondence, or decision-making. The manuscript must be assigned to an independent handling editor, and the recusal and reassignment must be documented. The structured editorial process mainly includes: Manuscript Submission; Initial Checks; Initial Academic Review; Peer Review; First AI Manuscript Quality Assessment and First Editorial Decision; Author Revision; Re-review, Staged AI Reassessment, and Editorial Processing of the Revised Manuscript; Final Academic Decision; Final Publication Verification; and Online Publication.

The corresponding author registers an account and submits the manuscript, ethics documents, and other relevant documents through the F6Publishing system. 

Upon submission, an Editor conducts initial checks to verify the following: (1) whether the manuscript's topic falls within the scope of the journal; (2) whether the authors' institutional affiliations and departments are consistent with the research topic; (3) for manuscripts involving animal experiments or human studies, whether the authors have provided valid ethics approval documentation; (4) for manuscripts involving human participants or human data, whether applicable informed consent documentation or an ethics committee-approved waiver has been provided, with personal identifiers redacted from any documents submitted to the journal; (5) for manuscripts requiring substantial English-language improvement, whether the authors have provided appropriate evidence of professional language editing or a statement confirming that the manuscript has been carefully reviewed and approved by all authors; (6) whether the manuscript is complete, including the main text, figures, tables, and references; (7) whether the cover letter appropriately aligns with both the journal's scope and the manuscript's content; (8) whether the authors' AI contribution statement is complete, transparent, and consistent with the manuscript content. Authors must disclose whether AI tools were used for language editing, translation, manuscript organization, literature organization, reference formatting, figure or table generation, data analysis, statistical analysis, or drafting of any manuscript section; and (9) whether there is any evidence of academic misconduct, such as paper mill involvement, coordinated or batch submissions showing indicators of paper-mill or fraudulent activity, ghostwriting, or plagiarism. If noncompliance with journal requirements is identified during the initial checks, the manuscript is returned to the authors for correction before resubmission or is rejected, as appropriate. If academic misconduct is suspected, the matter is handled in accordance with BPG's publication ethics policies and may be referred for further investigation. If academic misconduct is confirmed, the manuscript is rejected, and the authors may be subject to submission restrictions or other appropriate editorial actions.

If a manuscript passes the Initial Checks, it proceeds to initial academic review under the overall supervision of the Editor-in-Chief. When appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may assign the manuscript to an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member for initial academic assessment according to the manuscript's subject area and specialty. The assigned Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member conducts a preliminary assessment of the manuscript's academic quality and provides initial academic review comments. The Editor-in-Chief makes or confirms the decision on whether the manuscript is qualified for external peer review. This evaluation considers: (1) whether the Abstract contains the elements required for the applicable manuscript type and, for original research articles, follows an appropriate IMRaD structure; (2) whether the reported data are internally consistent, sufficiently described, scientifically plausible, and supported by the methods presented; (3) whether the selection and design of figures and tables follow the principles of necessity and clarity; (4) whether there is unnecessary duplication among sections of the manuscript or between the main text and the figures or tables; (5) whether figures and tables are numbered consecutively in the order in which they appear in the text; (6) whether the references are relevant to the manuscript's subject matter; and (7) whether the manuscript meets the scientific criteria required to proceed to external peer review. Manuscripts that pass the Initial Academic Review proceed to external peer review; those that do not pass are rejected.

All BPG journals use a single-blind peer-review model. For most manuscript types that normally require external peer review, once a manuscript passes the Initial Academic Review, the Scientific Editor usually sends review invitations to 10 prospective independent external experts with relevant subject-matter expertise and no conflicts of interest. External peer reviewers decide whether to accept or decline the invitation within 36 hours. If they accept, the review should normally be completed within 14 days in accordance with the Guidelines for Manuscript Review; when needed, a reviewer may select an extended deadline of 17 or 21 days. Each reviewer independently evaluates the manuscript within the reviewer's field of expertise, including its novelty, scientific significance, research design, methodology, statistical analysis, reliability and internal consistency of the reported results, appropriateness of the interpretation, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence. Reviewers provide reasoned, specific, and actionable comments; identify limitations, ethical concerns, reporting deficiencies, or the need for additional analysis or experiments when applicable; disclose conflicts of interest; and recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute an editorial decision.

5.1 Scientific Editor Evaluation of Peer-Review Reports. For most manuscript types, once at least two external peer-review reports have been submitted by different reviewers and verified by the Scientific Editor as meeting the applicable quality requirements, the Scientific Editor may, after considering the review comments and the circumstances of the manuscript, initiate the First Editorial Decision process. If the reports contain material disagreements, lack adequate subject-matter coverage, or the manuscript raises complex methodological or statistical issues, the Editorial Office may invite additional qualified experts to provide supplementary reviews. The Scientific Editor is responsible for verifying the reviewers' information and the content of the peer-review reports. First, the Scientific Editor determines whether each report complies with the Guidelines for Manuscript Review and assesses its validity and value for editorial decision-making. A report that does not meet the applicable quality requirements is classified as invalid, excluded from decision-making, and retained in the internal editorial record for accountability. If the valid reports are insufficient, the Scientific Editor invites additional qualified reviewers. The Scientific Editor verifies: (1) the reviewer's identity, including country, institution, academic degree, professional title, and affiliation status; (2) potential conflicts of interest, based on the reviewer's declaration, institutional affiliation, and other relevant professional, academic, financial, or personal relationships; (3) the comprehensiveness of the review. Peer reviewers should evaluate the manuscript independently, objectively, and comprehensively; briefly summarize the research question, principal findings, overall scientific value, and fit with the journal's scope; and focus particularly on the originality and scholarly significance of the study, research design and methods, sample size, control selection and design, statistical analysis, accuracy of results reporting, whether the conclusions are supported by the data, potential bias, methodological limitations, alternative explanations, and issues of reproducibility. They should also assess the clarity and organization of the title, abstract, main text, tables, figures, and references, as well as adherence to applicable reporting guidelines; provide the authors with specific, numbered, and actionable review comments that clearly distinguish major from minor issues; and select one recommendation (acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection) and provide a brief rationale; and (4) whether the reviewer has recommended citation of the reviewer's own work or that of colleagues. Reviewers generally should not request such citations; when an article is essential, the reviewer must provide a clear scholarly justification, and the authors remain free to decide independently whether to cite it.

5.2 First AI Manuscript Quality Assessment. During the First Editorial Decision stage, for most manuscript types, the Scientific Editor also conducts an AI-assisted academic-quality assessment to identify potential issues concerning novelty, research design, methodology, statistical analysis, reliability of the results, appropriateness of the conclusions, and compliance with scholarly reporting standards. Usually, for a manuscript that may be suitable for revision based on the initial academic review, valid peer-review reports, and preliminary editorial evaluation, the Scientific Editor performs an iThenticate similarity check to identify text overlap that may warrant examination for redundant publication, text recycling, or plagiarism, and conducts the first AI Manuscript Quality Assessment before the First Editorial Decision. Using standardized criteria appropriate to the manuscript type, the assessment establishes a documented quality baseline and assists in identifying correctable issues concerning scope and manuscript type, novelty and scientific significance, research design, methodology, statistical analysis, results reporting and internal consistency, support for the Discussion and Conclusion, ethics and research reporting, references, tables, figures, language, and relevant editorial requirements. The assessment supplements, but does not duplicate or replace, external peer review. It cannot by itself establish data authenticity, determine misconduct, or make an editorial decision. The Scientific Editor responsible for academic-quality verification reviews the report for accuracy, reasonableness, relevance, and completeness; marks unsupported findings as unverified or excludes them from consideration while preserving the original report in the editorial record; and records the verified issues to be considered in the First Editorial Decision.

5.3 First Editorial Decision: Revision Invitation or Rejection. The Scientific Editor documents the Scientific Editor's comments and makes the First Editorial Decision, which may invite revision or reject the manuscript. The decision is based on the initial academic review comments; the validity and content of the peer-review reports; the peer reviewers' ratings and recommendations; the verified findings of the first AI Manuscript Quality Assessment; the iThenticate similarity report; the authors' responses to the AI contribution questions and their AI contribution statement; and the verification results concerning applicable ethics approval, informed consent or waiver, and other relevant documents. AI findings are supporting information only and must not be the sole basis for revision or rejection.

5.4 Revision Invitation and Rejection Criteria. In general, if the manuscript receives at least two valid peer-review reports with a scientific-quality rating of Grade A (Excellent), Grade B (Very Good), or Grade C (Good), and a language-quality rating of Grade A (Excellent) or Grade B (Very Good), and the qualifying reviews support acceptance or revision, and the ethics-related documents comply with applicable academic and ethical standards, the Scientific Editor may make a First Editorial Decision inviting revision. If two or more reviewers recommend rejection, the Scientific Editor independently evaluates the substance, quality, and relevance of those reports and may reject the manuscript. For a manuscript invited for revision, the verified first AI assessment helps define the scope and priority of correctable issues communicated to the authors; it does not override valid peer-review findings or the Scientific Editor's judgment.

For manuscripts receiving a First Editorial Decision inviting revision, the Scientific Editor notifies the authors to revise their manuscript in accordance with the peer-review reports, the initial academic review comments, the Scientific Editor's comments, the verified findings of the first AI Manuscript Quality Assessment, and the Checklist for Manuscript Revision and Submission of Required Documents. Before sending the revision request, the Scientific Editor consolidates overlapping comments and excludes unsupported, irrelevant, or contradictory AI findings from the issues communicated to the authors. Authors are generally given 14 days to submit the revised manuscript. They must highlight changes in a copy of the revised manuscript and provide point-by-point responses to all verified comments in a formal Response to Reviewers letter. They must also provide a transparent and complete AI contribution statement covering any use of AI tools in language editing, translation, manuscript organization, literature organization, reference formatting, figure or table generation, data analysis, statistical analysis, or drafting of any manuscript section. Authors remain responsible for the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of all research data and scholarly content, the appropriateness of all analyses and conclusions, and the accuracy and adequacy of their revision explanations. Use of AI tools does not transfer or reduce this responsibility. When the Intelligent Manuscript Format Editor (IMFE) flags unrelated references, excessive self-citation, or reviewer-requested citations, the Scientific Editor verifies the issue and determines the appropriate action. A manuscript returned without adequately addressing the verified comments, or not revised within the deadline after an approved extension, may be rejected.

A revised manuscript undergoes a staged re-review, AI-assisted reassessment, human verification, and editorial processing sequence. The sequence is proportionate to the manuscript’s quality and the issues identified. The first and second AI Manuscript Quality Assessments provide a before-and-after comparison; a third or subsequent assessment is targeted to specific unresolved issues when necessary. Academic-quality verification and editorial-compliance verification are separately documented and assigned to the Scientific Editors responsible for those respective quality-control functions.

7.1 Initial Verification of the Revised Submission. The Scientific Editor first reviews the revised submission using the IMFE and the editorial record. The review includes: (1) verifying authentic and valid ethics-related documents appropriate to the manuscript type; (2) checking evidence of professional language editing or an all-author language-approval statement where required; (3) confirming that all authors have signed the Copyright License Agreement; (4) checking the completeness and technical suitability of the manuscript, figures, tables, supplementary materials, and image files; (5) confirming that the authors have addressed the peer-review comments, initial academic review comments, Scientific Editor's comments, verified findings of the first AI assessment, and the Checklist for Manuscript Revision and Submission of Required Documents; (6) verifying the accuracy, relevance, and order of reference citations; (7) checking the authors' AI contribution statement; and (8) confirming that the revised manuscript, marked version, response letter, and supporting documents are mutually consistent. Incomplete or materially inconsistent submissions are returned for correction or handled in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

7.2 Re-review When Necessary. When scientific issues require expert confirmation, the revised manuscript is returned to the original peer reviewers or, when necessary, to additional qualified reviewers. Reviewers assess whether their substantive comments have been adequately addressed, whether the revision introduces new concerns, and whether the evidence supports the revised conclusions. If further revision is recommended, the Scientific Editor evaluates the validity and scope of the request before communicating verified issues to the authors. Re-review may be omitted when the remaining issues are exclusively editorial or when the existing expert record is sufficient for academic review.

7.3 Second AI Manuscript Quality Assessment. After initial verification of the revised manuscript and, when required, completion of re-review, the Scientific Editor conducts a second AI Manuscript Quality Assessment using the same core criteria as those used in the first assessment. The assessment compares the revised manuscript with the prior version, evaluates whether the issues verified after the first assessment have been adequately resolved, documents relevant changes in quality, and identifies residual or new inconsistencies introduced during revision. The report must state the location and basis of each finding. The Scientific Editor responsible for academic-quality verification reviews the report and confirms which findings are valid and require action.

7.4 Further Author Revision. If the second assessment and human verification identify remaining correctable issues, the Scientific Editor sends the authors a consolidated further-revision request. The request clearly identifies unresolved and new issues, avoids repeating matters already resolved, and explains that this is an important final opportunity to resolve substantive correctable issues before the final academic decision. Authors revise the manuscript and provide a clear response to each verified issue. A further-revision opportunity does not imply or guarantee acceptance.

7.5 Targeted Subsequent AI Reassessment. After further revision, a third or subsequent AI reassessment may be conducted when necessary. This reassessment is targeted to the remaining verified issues and related manuscript sections rather than repeating an unrestricted full assessment. It confirms whether the specified issues have been resolved and checks whether the corresponding changes created material inconsistencies elsewhere. Minor correctable matters may be communicated to the authors for prompt correction. Persisting substantive issues, newly detected integrity concerns, or unresolved conflicts are evaluated by the Scientific Editor and, when appropriate, escalated to the Editor-in-Chief.

7.6 Scientific Editor Verification of Academic Quality. The Scientific Editor responsible for academic-quality verification conducts a separate, documented verification of the full manuscript and the complete academic record, including the initial academic review, peer-review and re-review reports, all AI Manuscript Quality Assessment reports, author responses and revision history, ethics and consent documents, statistical and data-consistency issues, and the support for the manuscript's conclusions. The editor must independently verify material AI findings rather than merely endorsing the AI report, identify any important issues missed by AI or peer review, document whether key issues have been resolved, and provide an independent recommendation for acceptance, further revision, rejection, or additional peer review.

7.7 Manuscript Editing and AI-Assisted Editorial-Compliance Assessment. After the manuscript passes academic-quality verification, the Scientific Editor performs full-text manuscript editing in accordance with the applicable manuscript-type checklist and BPG's editorial and publication standards. The review covers, as applicable, manuscript type, title, author information and affiliations, author contributions, funding, abstract, keywords, the Structured Evidence Summary, main-text structure, abbreviations, terminology, statistical reporting, ethics and consent statements, data availability and AI contribution statements, references and citations, figures and legends, tables, supplementary materials, language, and internal consistency. An AI-assisted editorial-compliance assessment may be used to identify remaining correctable omissions, inconsistencies, or formatting problems. This assessment does not reopen or replace the independent academic-quality verification.

7.8 Scientific Editor Verification of Editorial Compliance. The Scientific Editor responsible for editorial-compliance verification checks the edited full text and related files against the applicable checklist, verifies the validity of AI-assisted editorial-compliance findings, confirms that required corrections have been made, and ensures that editing has not unintentionally altered the authors' scientific meaning, numerical results, or conclusions. The edited manuscript is then sent to the authors for full-content confirmation. Authors must report any correction that affects data, interpretation, authorship, ethics, or conclusions; such a correction is referred back for academic review.

7.9 Consolidated Editorial Recommendation and Record. The academic-quality verification and editorial-compliance verification records remain separately identifiable. The responsible editors prepare a consolidated editorial record for the Editor-in-Chief that states the issues identified at each stage, the authors' responses, the verified resolution status, any remaining limitations or risks, and each editor's recommendation. Material disagreement among reviewer comments, AI findings, author responses, or editor conclusions is documented and escalated rather than silently resolved.

The Editor-in-Chief of each BPG journal has overall responsibility for academic quality control, editorial oversight, and the final academic decision. When appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief may seek academic assistance from an Associate Editor or Editorial Board Member; however, the final academic decision, including acceptance, further revision, or rejection, is made or confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the initial academic assessment; peer-review and re-review reports; the iThenticate similarity report; the first, second, and any targeted AI Manuscript Quality Assessment reports together with their human-verification records; ethics approval, consent, and other relevant documents; the authors’ AI contribution statement, responses, and revision history; the separately documented academic-quality and editorial-compliance verification results; and the final edited manuscript after author full-content confirmation. The Editor-in-Chief re-evaluates the manuscript’s novelty, scientific importance, research design, methodological and statistical soundness, reliability and internal consistency of the reported results, adequacy of the discussion, support for the conclusions, ethical compliance, and overall medical interest. AI outputs are supporting evidence only and are not used as the sole basis for the final decision. When material opinions conflict, the Editor-in-Chief weighs the quality and relevance of the underlying evidence, may request additional peer review or clarification, and records the rationale for the resolution. The final decision and its principal basis are documented in the editorial record.

9.1 Publication Technical Verification. After the Editor-in-Chief has accepted the manuscript on academic grounds, the BPG Journal Editorial Office Director conducts the final publication technical verification to ensure that the manuscript and related files meet the technical requirements for publication. This verification includes: (1) confirming that all manuscript files are complete, correct, compliant with applicable standards, and properly named; (2) confirming that ethics approval documentation includes the original official-language version and, where needed for editorial verification, an accurate English translation; (3) checking that personally identifiable information in documents such as informed consent or treatment consent forms has been redacted; (4) verifying that a funding approval document has been provided for each funding source where required; (5) verifying the authenticity of any language editing certificate provided by the authors; (6) confirming that the peer-review reports are complete and accurately displayed and that reviewer information is handled in accordance with journal policy and applicable privacy requirements; and (7) verifying that the Editor Work Checklist has been completed correctly and thoroughly. The BPG Journal Editorial Office Director also reviews the quality of manuscript editing, including whether the manuscript type, title, author names and affiliations, author contributions, funding information, abstract, citation information, Structured Evidence Summary, main text, references, required reviewer and editor identification or signatures, figures, figure legends, and tables comply with editing and publication standards. After final technical verification, the accepted manuscript is forwarded to the Production Department. This verification is technical and publication-focused and does not replace or independently alter the final academic decision. If the BPG Journal Editorial Office Director identifies a material scientific, ethical, authorship, data, or research-integrity issue, the issue is documented and referred to the Editor-in-Chief for academic reconsideration before publication proceeds.

9.2 Articles in Press and DOI Registration. After the manuscript is formally accepted for publication, the manuscript will be available as an Article in Press, an online pre-publication stage before final online publication. Once the manuscript enters the Articles in Press stage, a formal DOI is registered with Crossref. This DOI may be used to identify and cite the article before final assignment of volume, issue, article number, final publication date, and complete citation details. After final online publication, BPG will update the complete publication metadata in Crossref, and the same DOI will resolve to the final published article page.

10.1 PDF Production and Author Proofing. After the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the Production Editor generates a PDF proof from the accepted manuscript and accompanying figures and sends it to the authors by email for proofreading. The process includes: (1) formatting the figures from the image files submitted by the authors; (2) converting the accepted Word manuscript into XML; (3) generating the PDF proof from the XML and figure files and performing internal proofreading; (4) notifying the authors by email that the PDF proof is ready for review; (5) confirming whether the authors have returned their proof corrections; and (6) revising and updating the PDF proof in response to the authors' feedback and returning it for additional proofreading when necessary. Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the PDF proof and notifying the Production Editor of required corrections within the specified timeframe. If no response is received by the deadline, BPG may proceed with publication.

10.2 Production, Metadata Update and Online Publication. The Production Editor prepares the article XML, PDF, HTML, and related files in accordance with the publication schedule established by the Production Department Director: (1) The Production Editor prepares the cover for the issue, the complete electronic-journal PDF, and the online HTML preview, and checks the table of contents and publication information, as well as each manuscript's type, title, author list, main text, figures, tables, and references, against the accepted manuscript; (2) after confirming the accuracy of the electronic and online previews, the Production Editor updates the article's complete publication metadata in Crossref and formally publishes the article's PDF, HTML, XML, related research-integrity documents, and cover image; and (3) after confirming that the published article is displayed correctly, the complete DOI publication metadata have been successfully updated, and any supplementary materials, video, and related research-integrity documents are accessible, the Production Editor notifies the Production Department Director for verification.

10.3 Production Department Director's Verification. The Production Department Director verifies the accuracy of the electronic-journal PDF and online publication information, including the publication date, volume, issue, and table-of-contents information; confirms that the online version of each manuscript is accessible; verifies that all figures and tables are present; confirms that supplementary materials, videos, and related commentary articles are successfully linked; verifies that all manuscripts in the issue have been published on schedule; and reports required corrections to the Production Editor. The Production Editor then revises and updates the article PDF, HTML, XML, and related files accordingly, completes archiving, and sends the authors a publication notice and an invitation to evaluate the publication process. Finally, the Production Department Director features selected articles from the issue on the journal website, features the issue's cover image on the BPG homepage, and informs the Editor-in-Chief by email that the issue has been published.

Data Protection: Only journal-authorized AI systems that meet applicable confidentiality, data-protection, access-control, and record-retention requirements may be used in manuscript assessment or editorial processing. Submitted manuscripts, peer-review reports, and related confidential materials must not be uploaded to external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured. Editorial use of AI, including the tool and purpose of use, must be appropriately recorded, and human editors remain accountable for all assessments and decisions.