JED maintains strict editorial independence. Membership status, funding sources, and institutional affiliation do not influence decisions. Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts for methodological rigor, diagnostic validity, and contribution to etiological understanding.

Studies involving humans or animals must include approval details and informed consent procedures. Clinical trial registration should be provided where applicable. Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and data manipulation. Conflicts of interest and funding sources must be disclosed in every submission.

Data availability statements are required for all manuscripts. Use of language assistance tools must be disclosed, and such tools must not generate data or alter conclusions. Editors may request raw data or protocol documentation to verify etiological evidence.

Policy updates are reviewed regularly to align with evolving diagnostic standards and funder requirements. Authors will be informed if policy changes affect manuscripts under review.

Each author should make a substantial contribution to study design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation. All authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to submission. Changes to authorship after submission require written consent from all authors and a clear explanation.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial or personal relationships that could influence judgment. When conflicts are identified, alternative reviewers or editors are assigned to ensure impartial decisions.

Image manipulation, data fabrication, or selective reporting are not permitted. Authors may be asked to provide raw data or original images during review or after publication. If issues are confirmed, the journal will take corrective action in line with publishing standards.

Appeals must be submitted in writing with a clear scientific rationale and point by point response to reviewer concerns. Appeals are evaluated by independent editors to ensure fairness and protect the integrity of the process.

If disputes arise over authorship or data access, the journal may request institutional input. All cases are documented to ensure transparency and consistent outcomes.

Editorial policies are updated when new reporting guidelines, data sharing standards, or ethical frameworks emerge. Authors and reviewers are informed of significant changes that affect submissions under review.

Editors document key decision points to ensure transparency and fairness. When misconduct is suspected, the journal may consult institutions or request additional documentation before taking action.

We periodically audit editorial outcomes and update guidance to reflect new diagnostic standards and reporting expectations.

Author and reviewer guidelines summarize these policies so expectations remain clear throughout submission and review.

This consistency protects fairness and maintains trust in editorial decisions.