• 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

Policies apply to all submissions to ensure consistency and fairness across study designs.

Adherence supports trust in critical care and emergency evidence and protects patient welfare.

• All listed authors must approve the final version
• Contributor roles should be described clearly
• Honorary or gift authorship is not accepted
• Acknowledgments should include non author contributors

Clear contribution statements support transparency and reduce disputes.

Editors select reviewers based on clinical and methodological expertise. Reviewer identities and reports are treated as confidential.

Authors should not attempt to contact reviewers directly.

Human studies must include informed consent statements and privacy protections. Animal studies must comply with recognized welfare guidelines and include protocol identifiers.

For clinical trials, registration details should be provided in the manuscript and abstract.

Suspected misconduct is investigated with documented evidence. Editors may request raw data or institutional statements when needed.

Data integrity is essential for clinical translation and public trust.

• Adjustments should be applied uniformly
• Original files should be retained for verification
• Image reuse across publications must be disclosed
• Ethical approvals must cover image publication

Concerns about image integrity may lead to requests for raw files or institutional review.

Editors may request clarification when statements are incomplete. Transparent reporting improves reproducibility and indexing accuracy.

Authors should provide a preprint link and note any substantive differences from the submitted manuscript. Duplicate publication of the same data without disclosure is not permitted.

Authors should provide repository links, accession numbers, or access conditions. When code is central to the analysis, provide version details and documentation.

Clear documentation supports validation and secondary analysis.

• Repository name and persistent identifier
• Access restrictions for sensitive datasets
• Software version and package details
• Documentation for analysis workflows

Appeals are reviewed by senior editors not involved in the original decision. Complaints are handled with fairness and confidentiality.

Editors and reviewers must not share or use unpublished content for personal advantage. Confidentiality protects authors, reviewers, and the integrity of the record.

Confidential handling protects patient data and proprietary methods.

Allegations are reviewed with documentation and, when necessary, referred to institutional oversight bodies. The journal follows established guidelines for handling misconduct and corrections.

Authors are informed of outcomes and given the opportunity to respond when appropriate.

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

Editors may request additional disclosures if potential conflicts are identified during review.

• Financial relationships related to the study
• Employment or advisory roles
• Intellectual property interests
• Personal relationships that influence review