• Ethics approval and informed consent for human studies
• Clinical trial registration before enrollment
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding sources
• Originality and prohibition of duplicate submissions

Authors must confirm that research complies with ethical standards and that data are reported honestly.

Studies involving human participants must include ethics approval and informed consent statements.

Animal research should follow recognized welfare guidelines and include protocol approval identifiers.

Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to study design, data analysis, or manuscript preparation.

All authors must approve the final version and any major revisions.

The journal screens for plagiarism, image manipulation, and unethical practices.

Suspected misconduct is investigated with documented evidence.

Peer review is confidential and aims to provide constructive feedback that improves clarity and validity.

Editors select reviewers based on subject expertise and methodological fit.

Reviewer identities and reports are treated as confidential. Authors should not attempt to contact reviewers directly.

Authors should provide data availability statements and describe analytical methods in sufficient detail for replication.

• Data repository links or access instructions
• Transparent reporting of analytical methods
• Clear description of limitations and biases

Editors may request clarification or revisions when data availability statements are incomplete.

Clear access terms support compliance and reproducibility.

Figures should reflect original data without selective enhancement. Any adjustments must be applied uniformly and described in the methods.

The journal may request raw data files when concerns arise during review or post publication.

Errors may be corrected through notices or retractions when required.

Appeals are reviewed by senior editors not involved in the original decision.

Complaints are handled by senior editors to ensure fairness and confidentiality.

Disputes over authorship or ethics may require institutional clarification.

Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose financial or personal relationships that could influence interpretation.

Editors and reviewers should decline assignments when conflicts exist.

Editorial decisions are made without influence from sponsors, advertisers, or funding bodies.

Reviewers must provide fair, respectful assessments and avoid using confidential information for personal advantage.

Policies are reviewed regularly to reflect evolving best practices.

Adherence protects the credibility of survivorship research.

Clear policies support consistent decisions.

Consistency builds trust.

Authors should respond promptly to editorial requests.

Timely communication supports fair decisions.

Provide clear descriptions of methods, outcomes, and limitations to support reproducibility.

Transparent reporting improves trust in survivorship evidence and clinical translation.

Incomplete reporting may lead to requests for revision before peer review.

Concerns about fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism are investigated with documented evidence.

The journal may request raw data or institutional statements when needed.

When significant errors or clarifications arise, the journal may publish corrections or updates to maintain accuracy.

Authors are expected to cooperate with any required updates.

Funding sources and sponsor roles must be disclosed to avoid bias and maintain trust.

Undisclosed funding may result in correction or withdrawal of the article.

If a manuscript has been posted as a preprint, authors should disclose preprint details.

The submitted version should reflect any updates since preprint posting.

Editors provide clear decision rationales and summarize key reviewer concerns to guide revisions.

Decision timelines are monitored to maintain fairness.