Research and Publication Ethics

All submitted manuscripts must conform to MDPI’s policies as described. In all instances, MDPI closely follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles of publication ethics, which are laid out in its Core Practices documents. Their advice includes support on handling issues such as conflicts of interest, authorship and contributorship issues and disputes, misconduct allegations and data issues, overlap and plagiarism, and peer review integrity.

MDPI’s Editorial Boards are independent, and the publisher will not interfere with editorial decision-making. Where ethical or legal concerns are present, a decision may be changed, and the acceptance of a manuscript may be rescinded should an ethical issue or conflict with policies be identified. Manuscripts that do not conform to MDPI’s ethical policies may be withdrawn from submission by the publisher.

MDPI performs checks on all manuscripts to confirm that they conform with the Publication Ethics Guidelines. Some of the checks described are performed with the support of automatic checking services, facilitated by SuSy, while others are performed manually by the journal’s Editorial Office. When potential issues are flagged, these are confirmed by a human decision-maker. Where a manuscript does not conform to policies or is flagged during a check, in many cases, an Academic Editor is consulted.

MDPI is a member of COPE. We fully adhere to its Core Practices and its Guidelines.

MDPI journals uphold a rigorous peer review process, along with clear ethical policies and standards, to support the addition of high-quality scientific studies to the field of scholarly publication. When we become aware of ethical issues, we are committed to investigating these and taking the necessary action to maintain the integrity of the literature and ensure the safety of research participants.

Submitted manuscripts should conform to MDPI’s editorial and ethical policies, as outlined on this webpage and in the MDPI Instructions for Authors. In addition, submissions should adhere to individual journal guidelines.

Our principles are as follows:

• Prevention—We aim for the early detection and flagging of potential ethical issues via automated and manual checks of the peer review process and manuscripts.
• Neutrality—To be fair and objective, we conduct assessments to correct the literature where necessary.
• Transparency—We aim to keep all parties informed when possible and appropriate, allowing time for them to respond.
• Consistency—We ensure that the standard processes for the investigation of issues and applicability of policies are followed, and that the principles and flowcharts of COPE are upheld.

Authors submitting their work to MDPI journals must ensure that their manuscripts are ethically sound and meet the industry-recognized standards that are reflected in MDPI's policies.

Authors who submit their manuscripts to MDPI journals must comply with the following:

• Accurately present their research findings and include an objective discussion of the significance of their findings.
• Provide accurate authorship information by including only those who qualify for authorship and clearly stating their contribution.
• Disclose any facts that might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest at submission.
• Present their data and methods with attention to detail. The data and methods used in the research must be presented in sufficient detail in the manuscript to enable other researchers to replicate their work. Raw data must be made publicly available, unless there is a compelling reason otherwise (e.g., patient confidentiality).
• Be aware that the simultaneous submission of manuscripts to more than one journal is not permitted.
• Ensure that the original research results are novel and have not been previously published and that any translations abide by our policy on translations.
• Obtain permission from the copyright holder to publish any previously published content (including quotations, figures, or tables).
• Promptly communicate errors and inaccuracies that are found after publication.

This list is not exhaustive, and authors should be aware of local regulations and accepted norms within academic publishing.

MDPI follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, which state that in order to qualify for authorship of a manuscript, authors must meet all of the following four criteria:

• Make substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
• Draft the work or review it critically for important intellectual content;
• Provide final approval of the version to be published;
• Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions relating to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Those who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments. More detailed guidance on authorship is provided by the ICMJE.

Different disciplines adopt their own criteria; for example, the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines are well known in biomedical fields, the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines are used in psychology, and the EuChemS (European Chemical Society) guidelines are adopted in chemistry. In the arts, humanities, and social sciences, publications by single authors are more common. However, the minimum recognized requirements for authorship are that authors must have made a substantial contribution to the research and be accountable for the work undertaken (COPE Discussion document: authorship).

Any change to the author list during the editorial process or after publication should be approved by all authors, including any who have been removed. We reserve the right to request evidence of authorship, and any changes to authorship after acceptance will be made at the discretion of MDPI.

Author Contributions

For complete transparency, all submitted manuscripts should include an author contributorship statement that specifies the work of each author. For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided.

The following statement should be used: Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y., and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Please refer to the CRediT taxonomy for an explanation of these terms. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported.

The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors, keep their co-authors informed, and involve them in major decisions about the publication.

Joint first authors can be indicated by the inclusion of the statement “X and X contributed equally to this paper” in the manuscript. The roles of the equal authors should also be adequately disclosed in the contributorship statement.

For review articles, where individual statements are less applicable, a statement should be included that clarifies who was responsible for the ideation, who performed the literature search and/or data analysis, and who drafted and revised the work.

For articles that are principally based on a student’s dissertation or thesis, MDPI recommends that the student is listed as the principal author.

Consortium/Group Authorship

If authorship is retained by a consortium or group, the consortium or group should be listed as an author. Individual consortium/group author members listed in the author byline must qualify for authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines.

Where work is presented by the author(s) on behalf of a consortium or group, this should be clarified in the author list, such as with the phrasing of “Author A on behalf of XXX consortium/group”. The consortium/group will not retain authorship and will only appear in the author list.

If provided, the consortium/group members will be listed in a separate section at the end of the article in the Acknowledgments, Appendix, or Supplementary Materials.

Deceased Authors

If a manuscript is submitted with a deceased author included in the authorship, or if an author passes away during peer review, the corresponding author or co-authors should inform the Editorial Office. If the deceased author was a corresponding author, the authorship group should nominate a co-author for this role. The corresponding author should confirm the contribution of the deceased author and any potential conflicts of interest. Upon publication, a note will be added under the author list.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are expected to carefully consider authorship before manuscript submission. Any change to the author list should be made during the editorial process, before manuscript acceptance. Authorship changes, including any addition, removal, or rearrangement of author names, will require the approval of all authors, including any that are to be removed. To request any change in authorship, the journal must receive a completed authorship change form that includes the signatures of all authors and provides a reason for the change. Any changes to authorship that are requested after manuscript acceptance will result in a delay in publication. If the manuscript has already been published, requests for a change in authorship will be evaluated and require the publication of a Correction. We reserve the right to request evidence of authorship, and any changes to authorship after acceptance will be made at the discretion of MDPI.

Authorship Disputes

MDPI follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for resolving authorship disputes that may occur either during processing or post-publication. The COPE guidelines clearly state that journals are not in a position to adjudicate on appropriate authorship contributions (https://publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship) and that disputed authorship is not usually grounds for retraction when “there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings” (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).

In situations where disputes cannot be settled by the effected parties, journals will reach out to an appropriate institution or governing body for final adjudication. MDPI reserves the right to amend authorship lists in line with the recommendations of the institution or governing body.

MDPI recognizes the opportunities and challenges that are presented by the rapid development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) services such as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) for scholarly publishing. In order to provide transparency to the academic community, MDPI has developed the following policies based on the general guidance provided by STM and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in their position statement.

Manuscript preparation

Where GenAI has been used for purposes such as generating text, data, graphics, and a study design, or for data collection, analysis, or the interpretation of data, authors are required to declare this during the submission process. Furthermore, for transparency, authors are required to disclose details on how the GenAI tool was used in the Materials and Methods section and provide the GenAI tool’s product details in the Acknowledgments section.

Recommended acknowledgement statement: "During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the author(s) used [tool name, version information] for the purposes of [description of use]. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication."

The use of GenAI tools for the purposes of text editing (e.g., grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, and formatting) is not covered by this policy and does not need to be declared.

Authors are fully responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their manuscript, including any material that has been generated by GenAI tools, and they must ensure, through careful review, that this content complies with all MDPI’s publication ethics policies, including, but not limited to, the Plagiarism, Data Fabrication and Image Manipulation and Intellectual Property policies.

MDPI reserves the right to request further information, and editorial decisions will be made in line with MDPI’s Editorial Process and Terms and Conditions.

Authorship

GenAI tools and other large language models (LLMs) cannot be listed as authors, as these tools do not meet MDPI’s requirements for authorship.

GenAI use by reviewers

GenAI tools and other large language models (LLMs) should not be used by reviewers in the preparation of review reports. Reviewers are solely responsible for the contents of their reports, and the utilization of these tools may violate confidentiality, proprietary, and data privacy rights. Some limited use to improve the written quality of a peer review report, such as checking grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, and formatting, may be acceptable but should be disclosed upon submission of the peer review report. Under no circumstances should reviewers upload manuscripts either in whole or in part, images, figures, tables, or any kind of communication relating to manuscripts that are under review to any GenAI tools, as this violates MDPI's confidentiality policy relating to peer review. If it is determined that AI tools have been inappropriately used in the preparation of a review report, the report will be discarded.

GenAI use in editorial decision-making

Academic Editors (Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, and Guest Editors) play an essential role within the peer review process to ensure the integrity and rigor of this process. Given this significant responsibility, Academic Editors must not use GenAI tools during the editorial review or decision-making process. Under no circumstances should Academic Editors upload manuscripts either in whole or in part, images, figures, tables, or any kind of communication relating to manuscripts that are under review to any GenAI tools, as this violates MDPI's confidentiality policy relating to peer review.

Plagiarism is not acceptable in MDPI journals. Plagiarism includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving credit to the original source.

Reused text that is copied from another source must be between quotation marks and the original source must be cited. If a study's design or a manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be explicitly cited.

All MDPI submissions are checked for plagiarism using the industry-standard software iThenticate. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation will take place and action will be taken in accordance with our policies.

MDPI reserves the right to request original images at a sufficiently high resolution and unprocessed data files upon submission and during the peer review process for the purpose of post-publication investigations.

Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to the misinterpretation of the information provided in the original image. Irregular manipulation includes 1) the introduction, enhancement, modification, or removal of features from the original image; 2) the grouping of images that should obviously be presented separately (e.g., from different parts of the same gel or from different gels); and 3) modification of the contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or enhance specific information.

Any concerns raised over undeclared image modifications during manuscript processing or after publication will be investigated, and the authors will be requested to provide the original images and unprocessed data. If these data are unavailable upon request, the Editorial Office will halt the peer review process until the issues have been satisfactorily resolved. If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed during the peer review process, the publisher may reject the manuscript. In instances where irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed after publication, we may correct or retract the paper, and the issue may be raised with the authors’ institutions.

Any presented data must be original and not inappropriately selected, manipulated, enhanced, or fabricated. This includes 1) the exclusion of data points to enhance the significance of conclusions, 2) the fabrication of data, 3) the selection of results that support a particular conclusion at the expense of contradictory data, and 4) the deliberate selection of analysis tools or methods that support a particular conclusion (including p-hacking). We strongly recommend preregistering the methods and analysis.

MDPI encourages authors to retain unprocessed data and metadata files after publication by archiving their datasets on their laboratory or institutional servers or in public, community-supported repositories for at least five years after publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

When reporting on research that involves human subjects, human material, human tissues, or human data, authors must declare that the investigations were carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, which was revised in 2013. According to point 23 of this declaration, approval from the local Institutional Review Board (IRB) or another appropriate Ethics Committee must be obtained before undertaking the research to confirm that the study meets national and international guidelines. As a minimum, a statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board must be included in the Institutional Review Board Statement section of the article.

The following is an example of an Institutional Review Board statement: “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX (Project identification code) on [date of approval].”

For non-interventional studies (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, or social media research), all participants must be fully informed of whether their anonymity is assured, why the research is being conducted, how their data will be used, and if there are any risks involved in participating. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate Ethics Committee must be obtained prior to conducting the study. If ethical approval is not required, the authors must either provide an exemption from the Ethics Committee or cite the local or national legislation that indicates that ethics approval is not required for this type of study. When a study has been granted an exemption, the name of the Ethics Committee that provided this should be stated in the Institutional Review Board Statement section with a full explanation for the rejection of ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data, or human tissue must include a statement of informed consent for participation in research. Verbal informed consent to participate in a study can be acceptable under some circumstances (such as in ethnographic studies). The authors must explain the rationale for using this kind of consent in the Informed Consent Statement section. For verbal informed consent, a copy of the script that was used must be provided during the submission stage.

For all manuscripts that include identifying patient/participant information (personal details, images, or videos relating to an individual person), written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from patients/participants (or their relatives/guardians) before submission to an MDPI journal. A blank version of the form used to obtain permission (without the patient or participant names or their signatures) should be provided upon submission. You may refer to our consent to publish form and provide an appropriate form after consulting with your affiliated institution.

For the purposes of publishing in MDPI journals, a consent, permission, or release form should include unlimited permission for publication in all formats (including print, electronic, and online), in sublicensed and reprinted versions (including translations and derived works), and in other works and products under the open access license. To respect patients’, participants’, or any other individuals’ privacy, please do not send signed forms.

Private information identifying participants need not be included, unless the identifiable materials are of relevance to the research (e.g., photographs of participants’ faces that show a particular symptom). The initials of patients or participants and other personal identifiers must not appear in any images. Patient or participant details must be anonymized as much as possible, i.e., specific information on age, ethnicity, occupation, or other factors should not be mentioned where they are not relevant to the conclusions. Necessary steps to protect privacy may include de-identifying data, adding noise, or blocking portions of the database. Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.

The Editorial Office reserves the right to request further documentation when necessary. The submitted manuscript will be scrutinized by the Editorial Office, and upon request, documentary evidence (signed consent forms and any related discussion documents from the Ethics Board) must be provided.

The following are examples of an informed consent statement: “Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” “Informed consent for participation is not required as per local legislation [provide local legislation].” “Verbal informed consent was obtained from the participants. Verbal consent was obtained rather than written because [state the reason].” “Informed consent for publication was obtained from all identifiable human participants.”

Requirements for Studies on Vulnerable Groups and Organ Transplants

If a study involves vulnerable groups, the manuscript will undergo an additional review by the Editorial Office. If requested, the author must provide documentary evidence, including blank consent forms and any related discussion documents from the Ethics Board or other relevant bodies. Additionally, when studies describe groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, disease, etc., an explanation regarding why such categorization was needed must be clearly provided in the article.

Articles describing human organ transplantation studies are subject to all policies regarding research involving human subjects. Additionally, the authors must specify the institution(s), clinic(s), or department(s) from which the organs or tissues were sourced. MDPI does not accept manuscripts that report data on organs and/or other materials obtained from illegal commercial activity, from executed prisoners, or via other unethical practices relating to organ donations. Manuscripts addressing this practice, such as Editorials or reports on its secondary consequences, may be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief but require a written appeal to the Editorial Office before submission. For further resources on organ transplantation, MDPI follows the glossary maintained by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network.

Registration

Clinical trials are subject to all policies regarding Research Involving Human Subjects. In addition, MDPI follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, which require the registration of clinical trials in a public trial registry at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for publication. The ICMJE defines a clinical trial as any research project that prospectively assigns people or a group of people to an intervention, with or without concurrent comparison or control groups, to study the relationship between a health-related intervention and a health outcome. Therefore, ‘clinical trial’ not only refers to studies that take place in a hospital or involve pharmaceuticals but also to all studies which involve participant randomization and group classification in the context of the intervention under assessment.

Authors must preregister clinical trials with an international clinical trial register. Suitable databases include clinicaltrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and those listed on the World Health Organisation’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The name of the registry, trial registration number, and date of registration should be included in the Institutional Review Board statement or in the Materials and Methods section.

Purely observational studies (e.g., cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and case–control studies) do not require registration. Editors may consider exceptions to pretrial registration requirements in some cases. If an exception is granted, the authors must retroactively register the trial and clearly indicate the date and reasons for the retroactive registration in the Materials and Methods section of the publication.

Approval to conduct a study from an independent local, regional, or national review body is not equivalent to prospective clinical trial registration. MDPI reserves the right to decline any paper without trial registration for further peer review.

Randomized Clinical Trial Reporting Guidelines

In addition to clinical trial registration, MDPI requires a completed CONSORT 2025 checklist and flow diagram as a condition of submission when reporting the results of a randomized clinical trial. Checklist templates can be found on the CONSORT website, which also describes several CONSORT checklist extensions for different designs and types of data beyond two-group parallel trials. As a minimum, clinical trial articles should report the content addressed by each item of the checklist.

The editors will require that the benefits that can potentially be derived from any research causing harm to animals are significant in relation to any cost that is endured by animals, and that the procedures followed are unlikely to cause offense to the majority of readers. Authors should particularly ensure that their research complies with the commonly accepted '3Rs' [1]:

• Replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible;
• Reduction in the number of animals used;
• Refinement of experimental conditions and procedures to minimize the harm to animals.

Authors must include details on housing, husbandry, and pain management in their manuscript.

For further guidance, authors should refer to the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures [2], American Association for Laboratory Animal Science [3], or European Animal Research Association [4].

If national legislation requires it, studies involving vertebrates or higher invertebrates must only be carried out after obtaining approval from the appropriate Ethics Committee. As a minimum, the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board should be provided in the Institutional Review Board Statement section. Research procedures must be carried out in accordance with national and institutional regulations. Statements on animal welfare should confirm that the study complied with all relevant legislation. Clinical studies involving animals and interventions outside of routine care require Ethics Committee oversight as per the American Veterinary Medical Association’s guidelines. If the study involved client-owned animals, informed client consent must be obtained and certified in the manuscript. The owners must be fully informed if there are any risks associated with the procedures and that the research will be published. If possible, a high standard of veterinary care must be provided. The authors are responsible for the correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript.

If ethical approval is not required by national laws, authors must provide an exemption from the Ethics Committee, if one is available. Where a study has been granted exemption, the name of the Ethics Committee that provided this should be stated in the Institutional Review Board Statement section, with a full explanation as to why ethical approval was not required.

If no Animal Ethics Committee is available to review applications, authors should be aware that the ethics of their research will be evaluated by the reviewers and editors. Authors should provide a statement justifying the work from an ethical perspective, using the same utilitarian framework that is used by Ethics Committees. Authors may be asked to provide this, even if they have received ethical approval.

MDPI endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (arriveguidelines.org/) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers must use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/documents/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf. Editors reserve the right to ask for the checklist and to reject submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines, as well as to reject submissions based on ethical or animal welfare concerns or if the procedure described does not appear to be justified by the value of the work presented.

Please find below the list of relevant resources mentioned above:

1. NSW Department of Primary Industries and Animal Research Review Panel. Three Rs. Available online: https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/dpi/animals/animal-ethics-infolink/three-rs.
2. Home Office. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Bred, Supplied or Used for Scientific Purposes. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/388535/CoPanimalsWeb.pdf.
3. American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. The Scientific Basis for Regulation of Animal Care and Use. Available online: https://www.aalas.org/about-aalas/position-papers/scientific-basis-for-regulation-of-animal-care-and-use.
4. European Animal Research Association. EU regulations on animal research. Available online: https://www.eara.eu/animal-research-law.

In submissions reporting on research involving cell lines, the Materials and Methods section should state the origin of any cell lines. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated, and references to either a published paper or a commercial source must also be provided. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including those gifted from another laboratory, details of Institutional Review Board or Ethics Committee approval must be provided, and confirmation of written informed consent must be provided if the line is of human origin. Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.

The following is an example of an ethics statement:

“The HCT116 cell line was obtained from XXXX. The MLH1+ cell line was provided by XXXXX, Ltd. The DLD-1 cell line was obtained from Dr. XXXX. The DR-GFP and SA-GFP reporter plasmids were obtained from Dr. XXX, and the Rad51K133A expression vector was obtained from Dr. XXXX.”

Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and the material’s origin must be provided. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than typical model plants such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, or Oriza sativa), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. Voucher specimens may be requested for review by future investigators to verify the identity of the material used in the study (especially if taxonomic rearrangements occur in the future). These specimens should be accompanied by details of the populations that were sampled, the site of collection (GPS coordinates), date of collection, and the part(s) that were used in the study, when appropriate. For rare, threatened, or endangered species, this can be waived, but the author must describe this in their cover letter.

Editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.

The following are examples of ethics statements:

“Torenia fournieri plants were used in this study. White-flowered Crown White (CrW) and violet-flowered Crown Violet (CrV) cultivars selected from ‘Crown Mix’ (XXX Company, City, Country) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX (XXX Institute, City, Country).”

“Arabidopis mutant lines (SALKxxxx, SAILxxxx,…) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX , institute, city, country).”

MDPI follows the practical framework described in 'Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations' and introduced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Research that could pose a significant threat, with broad potential consequences to public health or national security, should be clearly indicated in the manuscript, and potential dual-use research of concern should be explained in the cover letter upon submission. Potential areas of concern include, but are not limited to, biosecurity, nuclear and chemical threats, and research with a military purpose or application. For these manuscripts to be considered for peer review, the benefits to the general public or public health must outweigh the risks. The authors have a responsibility to comply with relevant national and international laws.

We encourage our authors to follow the ‘Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER – guidelines’ and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing these terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss the respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale for this should be explained in the Discussion section. We suggest that authors consult the full guidelines before submission.

Potential disputes over borders and territories may have particular relevance for authors when describing their research or in an author or editor correspondence address and should be respected. Content decisions are an editorial matter, and where there is a potential or perceived dispute or complaint, the Editorial Office will attempt to find a resolution that satisfies all parties involved.

MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Authors should avoid entering into agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that interfere with authors’ access to all of the study’s data or that interfere with their ability to analyze and interpret the data and to prepare and publish manuscripts independently when and where they choose”.

Authors must identify and declare any personal circumstances or interests that may be perceived as inappropriately influencing the representation or interpretation of the reported research results. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to, financial interests (such as membership, employment, consultancies, stocks/shares ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies, and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, and personal beliefs).

Any role of the funding sponsors in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results must be declared in this section. If there is no role, please state the following: “The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results”.

Authors can disclose potential conflicts of interest via the online submission system during the submission process. Declarations regarding conflicts of interest can also be submitted using the MDPI disclosure form. The corresponding author must include a summary statement in the manuscript in a separate Conflicts of Interest section, placed immediately before the reference list. The statement should reflect all the potential conflicts of interest disclosures that were collected in the form.

The following is an example of a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest:

“Conflicts of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stocks in Company Y. Author C has been involved as a consultant and expert witness in Company Z. Author D is the inventor of patent X.”

If no potential perceived conflicts exist, the authors should state the following:

“Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

MDPI acknowledges the importance of publishing research on smoking cessation or reducing tobacco use. While we accept submissions on these topics, MDPI does not publish studies that are funded partially or fully by the tobacco industry. Other privately funded studies—for example, those associated with the pharmaceutical or food industries—must clearly state the role of the funder. This statement should cover aspects relating to how the study topic was selected, the experimental design, and the collection and analysis of data.

For all articles published in MDPI journals, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work, while ensuring that the authors receive proper credit.

In exceptional circumstances, articles may be licensed differently. If you have specific conditions (such as conditions linked to funding) that do not allow for this license to be used, please mention this to the Editorial Office of the journal at the submission stage. Exceptions will be granted at the discretion of the publisher.

For previously published content, it is essential that, prior to submission, authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, tables, text, etc.) that does not fall into the public domain or for which they do not hold the copyright.

Permission is required for the following:

• Your own work that has been published by other publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
• Substantial extracts from the work of another author or a series of work.
• Tables, graphs, charts, schemes, and artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
• Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.

Permission is not required for the following:

• A reconstruction of your own table with data that have already been published elsewhere. Please note that in this case, you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
• Very short quotes, which are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
• Graphs, charts, schemes, and artwork that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission. However, you may need to check the copyright permissions of any underlying data.

Once you have obtained permission, the copyright holder may give you instructions in the form of an acknowledgement to be followed. Alternatively, we recommend using the following statement: “Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year]”.

Preprints

MDPI accepts submissions that have previously been made available as preprints, provided that they have not undergone peer review, but we do not consider preprints of prior publications that would prevent publication after peer review. Authors are required to disclose a preprint posting (DOI and licensing terms) during submission to an MDPI journal or at any other stage of the review process. Once the submitted manuscript has been published, authors are encouraged to consider updating the preprint record with the publication reference (the DOI and a link to the publication on the journal website). MDPI’s policy on preprints is informed by COPE’s guidelines and recommendations, and more details can be accessed via the following link:

• Authors should not update the preprint with any version of the paper while it is undergoing peer review, as the peer review process is confidential.
• Authors should disclose any changes in authorship between the preprint version and the version submitted to the journal (the journal can ask for an explanation about any significant changes in authorship).
• Authors should cite any relevant preprints that they have considered during the research for or writing of their paper.

Translations

MDPI journals may consider high-quality content that has previously been published in a different language for publication, provided that the original study is appropriately referenced in the Acknowledgments section.

• Authors should clearly declare in the cover letter that their paper is a translated version at the time of submission.
• All authors from the original publication must be listed in the submitted manuscript.
• Appropriate permission must be sought and granted from the publisher, copyright holders, and/or authors of the original article prior to manuscript submission.
• Relevant documentation relating to these permissions must be uploaded in the Supplementary Materials section during submission.
• The journal’s editorial staff must be informed about the publication history of the previously published content.
• The original article must be referenced in the Acknowledgments section.

The following is an example of a translation statement: “This is a translation/reprint of (insert title here), originally published in (insert language) by (insert publisher) (insert journal name, year, issue/volume number, page numbers). This translation was prepared by (insert name) with support from (insert name of funding source, if any). Permission was granted by (insert publisher, copyright holder, and/or authors name).”

Any translated articles that do not follow the above guidelines will not be accepted. Those that pass the pre-check will be peer-reviewed in accordance with MDPI’s editorial process.

Patents

MDPI journals provide fast, rigorous peer review and rapid publication following acceptance. Accepted articles are immediately available online, complete with a DOI, and published on an ongoing basis, regardless of their issue’s date of release. Publication, peer review and editorial procedures, proofreading and copyediting, and other processes will not be postponed due to pending issues relating to patent applications or intellectual property. Authors are responsible for ensuring that all patent applications and intellectual property issues are resolved prior to publication. Any patent applications or registrations should be declared in accordance with MDPI’s Conflicts of Interest Policy.

Authors should ensure that where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing), the source is clearly cited, and that where appropriate, permission is obtained.

Authors should not engage in excessive self-citation of their own work.

Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

Authors should not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.

Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.

In accordance with the COPE guidelines, we expect that “original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations”. This condition also applies to an author’s own work. COPE have produced a discussion document on citation manipulation with recommendations for best practice.

MDPI is committed to supporting open scientific exchange and enabling our authors to comply with best practices for sharing and archiving research data. We encourage all authors of articles published in MDPI journals to share their research data, including, but not limited to, protocols, analytic methods, raw data, processed data, code, software, algorithms, and study materials. The data should be FAIR—findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable—so that other researchers can locate and use the data.

We recommend that data and codes are deposited in a trusted repository that will allow for maximum reuse (see the Data Preservation section below). If this is not possible, authors are encouraged to share the specific reason for this in the Data Availability Statement and make this material available to interested researchers upon request. In addition, research materials that are necessary for the reproduction of an experiment should be indicated in the Materials and Methods section. Individual journal guidelines can be found at the journal’s ‘Instructions for Authors’ page. Our data sharing policies concern the minimal dataset that is required to support the central findings of a published study. Any generated data should be publicly available and cited in accordance with journal guidelines.

MDPI's data policies are informed by the TOP Guidelines.

Where ethical, legal, or privacy issues are present, data should not be shared. The authors should clarify the availability status of the data upon submission and make any limitations or exceptions clear in the article’s Data Availability Statement. Authors should ensure that the sharing of data is carried out in accordance with the consent provided by participants on the use of confidential data. They should also ensure that the publication of such data does not compromise the anonymity of the participants or breach local data protection laws.

In situations where access is restricted to protect confidential or proprietary information, authors will be requested to clearly explain the restrictions on the dataset and make the data available upon request, with permission, for the purposes of peer review.

MDPI recognizes that some institutions and funding agencies only require the retention of research data for a finite period after a project’s completion or publication. However, no such limits are specified within MDPI’s Data Availability Policy; therefore, we encourage authors to archive their research data through appropriate data repositories or provide us with minimal datasets within Supplementary Materials.

Data Availability Statements

Data Availability Statements are required for all articles that are published with MDPI. During the peer review and editorial decision process, authors can be asked to share existing datasets or raw data that have been analyzed in the manuscript, and may be asked to indicate whether they will be made available to other researchers following publication. The authors will also be asked for the details of any existing datasets that have been analyzed in the manuscript.

The following are our recommended Data Availability Statements:

Data availability status	Recommended Data Availability Statement
Data available in a publicly accessible repository	The original data presented in the study are openly available in [repository name, e.g., FigShare] at [DOI/URL] or [reference/accession number].
Data available on request due to restrictions (e.g., privacy, legal or ethical reasons)	The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to (specify the reason for the restriction).
3rd Party Data	Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from [third party] and are available [from the authors/at URL] with the permission of [third party].
Embargo on data due to commercial restrictions	The data that support the findings will be available in [repository name] at [URL / DOI link] following an embargo from the date of publication to allow for commercialization of research findings.
Restrictions apply to the datasets	The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because [include reason, e.g., the data are part of an ongoing study or due to technical/ time limitations]. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to [text input].
Data derived from public domain resources	The data presented in this study are available in [repository name] at [URL/DOI], reference number [reference number]. These data were derived from the following resources available in the public domain: [list resources and URLs].
Data sharing is not applicable (only appropriate if no new data is generated or the article describes entirely theoretical research)	No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Data is contained within the article or supplementary material	The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).
Dataset available on request from the authors	The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Data preservation

MDPI acknowledges that researchers, institutions, journals, and data repositories have a shared responsibility to ensure long-term data preservation, and MDPI encourages authors to select data repositories with this goal in mind.

MDPI encourages authors to commit to preserving their datasets on their laboratory or institutional servers for at least five years after publication. If, during that time, the repository to which the data were originally submitted disappears or experiences data loss, we may ask the authors to upload the data to another repository and publish a Correction or update to the original publication.

If the authors remove their data from the original public repository or change the access criteria in a manner that is inconsistent with those provided in the publication, we ask the authors to notify the Editorial Office as soon as possible.

Choosing an appropriate data repository

MDPI encourages the submission of data to community-recognized data repositories where possible. We recommend that authors visit re3data.org or fairsharing.org to help identify registered and certified data repositories that are relevant to their subject area if no community resource is available. If the authors’ institution has a generalist data repository, this can be used to host authors’ data, as long as the repository can issue DataCite DOIs, and allows for the data to be shared under open terms of use (e.g., the CC0 waiver).

Data repository criteria

When selecting an appropriate repository, authors should ensure that platforms meet the following criteria:

• Ensure the long-term persistence and preservation of datasets in their published form;
• Provide stable identifiers for submitted datasets (usually DOIs);
• Allow for public access to data without barriers, such as logins or paywalls;
• Support open licenses (CC0 and CC-BY, or their equivalents, are required in most cases);
• Provide confidential reviews of submitted datasets without the requirement for reviewers to provide identifying information.

Data citation

Authors are encouraged to formally cite any datasets that are stored in external repositories and mentioned within their manuscript, including the main datasets that are the focus of the submission and any other datasets that have been used in the work. For previously published datasets, authors should cite both the related research articles and the datasets themselves. The appropriate citation of data is checked and enforced by the journal’s editorial staff before publication.

Along with the Editorial Office, all participants in the peer review process, including Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, and reviewers, must take responsibility for overseeing the integrity of MDPI’s editorial process.

If a participant in the peer review process has ethical concerns about a manuscript that is sent for a review or decision, or if they receive information about a possible ethical issue after publication, they must contact the Editorial Office as soon as possible. The Editorial Office will then conduct an investigation in accordance with MDPI’s Comments and Complaints Policy and the COPE guidelines.

Before and during peer review, a number of checks are performed by Managing Editors and Assistant Editors in the Editorial Office. However, concerns from reviewers and editors should still be reported to the Editorial Office. The editorial staff will perform the following checks:

1. Checks for ethics approval and permissions for research involving human subjects, animals, or cell lines.
2. Checks for plagiarism, duplicate publication, and necessary permissions from copyright holders to include already published figures or images.
3. Registration of clinical trials and a reference to the registration in the Materials and Methods section.
4. Other compliance, ethics, and research integrity checks in accordance with MDPI’s policies and guidelines.

When making a recommendation or final acceptance decision for a manuscript, reviewers and editors should consider the following:

1. Any facts that might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest must be disclosed, and authors must disclose conflicts of interest relating to their manuscript or study prior to submission.
2. Authors must accurately present their research findings and include an objective discussion of the significance of their findings.
3. The data and methods used in the research must be presented in sufficient detail in the paper, so that other researchers can replicate their work.
4. The submission should fit the scope of the journal.
5. There should be sufficient feedback on the submission provided by suitable reviewers.

Potential Conflicts of Interests

MDPI supports transparency, and all those who are involved in the peer review process must carefully consider and declare any conflicts of interest when participating in the review, decision-making process, and publication of an article. All associations that interfere with, or could potentially be perceived to interfere with, a full and objective assessment, peer review, and the decision-making process must be declared.

To support the integrity of the peer review and editorial decision-making processes, MDPI employs system-level checks and other monitoring mechanisms to support the identification of potential conflicts of interest involving authors, reviewers, and Academic Editors. These measures are intended to supplement, not replace, the responsibility of all participants to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Even if a reviewer or Academic editor believes that the existence of a conflict of interest, or several conflicts of interest, will not impact the peer review or decision-making process, the reviewer or Academic editor should remove themselves from the process to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest and to protect the integrity of the peer review process.

In the event of a conflict of interest, alternative reviewers and/or Academic Editors will be appointed. Academic Editors, including Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, Topic Editors, and Collection Editors, may not participate in the peer review or editorial decision-making process for their own manuscripts. Such submissions are handled by independent editors who do not have a conflict of interest, and the Academic Editor has no access to the peer review process beyond their role as author.

Types of Conflicts of Interest

Personal or Collaborative

Neither reviewers nor Academic editors should take part in the review of manuscripts that have been submitted by authors who are affiliated with their own institution, by authors who are research or project collaborators, or by authors who are personal friends, family members, or spouses. Reviewers or Academic editors should not take part in the review or decision-making process of manuscripts that have been submitted by authors who currently hold or have held a mentor or mentee role or relationship, or manuscripts written by those with whom they have collaborated or co-authored in the last 3 years.

Financial or Professional Conflicts

Financial conflicts include any professional or business relationships, financial or commercial interests, or other competing interests that may be viewed as potentially introducing bias into the review process. Neither reviewers nor Academic editors should receive professional or personal benefits, salaries, board memberships, funding, or grants from a company or companies with interests in the reported results or other aspects of the contents of the manuscript; receive honoraria from or hold any other interests in a company whose product is discussed in the article; or hold intellectual property rights such as patents, royalties, and copyright as a result of their contribution.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of financial considerations. APC billing, discount eligibility, waiver requests, and payment administration are handled separately from peer review and editorial decision-making. Academic Editors who are involved in, or who become aware of, manuscript-specific financial arrangements, including APCs, waivers, discounts, or other payment-related matters, should not participate in the review or decision-making process for that manuscript.

Reviewers and Academic editors should not take part in the review or decision-making process for manuscripts where conflicts of interest that may be viewed as potentially introducing bias are present.

Other Conflicts

Any other conflicts of interest, either real or with the potential to be viewed as influencing the outcome of peer review and the decision-making process, should be declared. Reviewers and Academic editors should evaluate the manuscript’s merit, originality, and appropriateness for the journal in accordance with MDPI’s editorial guidelines. MDPI aims to build journals that are diverse and inclusive, and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religion, country of origin, physical ability, or socio-economic status has no place in MDPI journals. Reviewers and Academic editors must disclose personal biases that may affect the peer review process.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All correspondence between editors, authors, peer reviewers or any other parties should be treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editors must keep the contents of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

MDPI journals perform single- or double-anonymized peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or a PDF format.

MDPI journals offer authors the possibility to publish the review reports with their paper and for reviewers to sign their open peer review reports; however, MDPI will not reveal reviewers’ names until publication and will only do so with their explicit agreement. Further information can be found in the Open Peer Review section of our website.

Readers who have concerns or complaints about published papers should first contact the corresponding author to attempt to resolve the issue directly before contacting the Editorial Office.

The Editorial Office may be contacted in cases where it is not appropriate to contact the authors, if the authors were not responsive, or if the concerns were not resolved. The Editorial Office will coordinate with the complainant, author/s, and Editors-in-Chief or Editorial Board Members to investigate, remedy, or resolve any concerns or complaints.

All correspondence and information shared during the investigation, as well as the identity of the scholars/complainants/Editorial Board members involved, will be treated as confidential, and should not be shared without appropriate permission.

Complaints, comments, or update requests relating to the scholarly validity or ethical or legal aspects of either the paper or its review process will be investigated further when appropriate. All complaints, comments, or update requests relating to published papers are investigated by the Editorial Office, with the support of the Editorial Board and final approval by the Editor-in-Chief. For ethical concerns, final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board Members, who are supported by the Editorial Office to promote adherence to the core principles of publication ethics, as expressed by COPE. Other individuals and institutions will be consulted as necessary, including university authorities or experts in the field. Legal counsel may be sought if the complaint has legal implications.

Personal comments or criticisms will not be entertained. All complaints are investigated, including anonymous complaints. Complainants may request that the Editorial Office handle their complaint confidentially, and the Editorial Office, Editors-in-Chief, or other Editorial Board Members will attempt to do so insofar as is appropriate and in accordance with our internal procedures.

Decisions about Corrections, Comments and Replies, Expressions of Concern, or Retractions resulting from an investigation are made by Editors-in-Chief, Section Editors-in-Chief, or Editorial Board Members and communicated to the authors. All updates are required to follow our policy on Updating Published Papers.

If a complaint is not considered to be substantiated, further communication will only be considered if additional information providing evidence for the expressed concerns is presented.

Complainants may not be updated about the status of an investigation until a final decision has been reached; however, complainants will be notified if an update is published. The Editorial Office and Editorial Board Members are under no obligation to present further details. Communication will be terminated if it is not considered cordial or respectful. Readers with complaints or concerns should be aware that investigations take time to conduct.

When raising concerns to the Editorial Office, please use the Contact Form or contact details below, and, in addition to details about the paper, please include details of the complaint; its scholarly, scientific, or academic validity; a summary of the main points and any other issues; details of any correspondence that you have already had with the authors; and a statement clarifying any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

MDPI recognizes our responsibility to correct scientifically relevant errors or ethical issues that have been brought to our attention. To offer transparency for our authors and readers regarding any changes, we adhere to the standardized criteria presented below for updates to any of our published papers.

Non-notified update

Non-notified updates are updates made directly to the publication and can be completed in certain situations (please refer to our correction reference guide) if deemed by the Editorial Office to be a reasonable request. Once approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website. Following this, all relevant indexing databases will be notified to ensure that the database versions have also been revised.

Corrections

MDPI distinguishes between Minor and Major corrections.

• Minor corrections address issues that do not impact the scientific content of an article but require an updated version to be uploaded to the version of the record (VoR). Should this update be approved, it will be accompanied by the addition of a footnote on the pdf version and the addition of a “correction statement” located in the backmatter of the website version. A minor correction will not be accompanied by a separate published correction notice.
• Major corrections aim to address issues and errors that could affect the scientific interpretation of an article. Once approved, the paper will be updated and re-published on our website, along with the publication of a correction. This notice is a separate publication that links to the updated paper but is published in the most current issue of the journal. The correction notifies all readers that a significant change has occurred to the paper and that the revised version is now available on the website.

Following both a Minor and Major correction, all relevant indexing databases will be notified to ensure that the database versions have also been revised. You will find further information on our publication update policy in our correction reference guideline.

Author Name Change Policy

Some authors might wish to change their name following publication. In such cases, MDPI will update and republish the article and re-deliver the updated metadata to the appropriate indexing databases (please note that all updates are dependent upon the policies of the databases). Our teams are aware that name changes can be sensitive and/or private in nature, for a variety of reasons that may include alignment with gender identity, marriage, divorce, or religious conversion. Therefore, to protect author identity, a Correction will not be published and co-authors will not be notified. Authors should contact the journal’s Editorial Office with their name change request.

Retractions

Sometimes a paper needs to be retracted from the body of research literature. This could be due to inadvertent errors made during the research process, gross ethical breaches, fabrication of data, large amounts of plagiarism, or other reasons. Such articles threaten the integrity of scientific records and need to be retracted.

MDPI follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for retraction.

If a Retraction is published, the original publication is amended with a “RETRACTED” watermark, but will still be available on the journal’s website for future reference. However, retracted articles should not be cited and used for further research, as they cannot be relied upon. Retractions are published using the same authorship and affiliation as the paper being retracted, so that the notice and the original retracted paper can be properly found by readers within indexing databases. The Retraction notice will also be published in the current Issue of the journal.

A paper will only be completely removed from MDPI’s website and relevant indexing databases in very exceptional circumstances, such as:

(1) The removal has been requested by an order from a court or government authority;

(2) The content poses a threat to personal privacy or the legal rights of other parties, which cannot be adequately addressed through editorial notices or updates;

(3) The research was conducted or published unlawfully, and its ongoing presence may lead to potential legal issues or privacy concerns;

(4) Although marked as retracted, the content poses risks to the general public.

Under these situations, the retraction notice explains why the entire paper has been removed, and only the metadata (title and authors) is kept.

Expression of Concern

For complex, inconclusive, or prolonged situations, an editor or journal may consider issuing an Expression of Concern. The purpose of an Expression of Concern is to notify readers of concerns in situations where investigations have not yet been completed or prove to be inconclusive. It will typically detail the points of concern and outline what actions, if any, are in progress.

An Expression of Concern is a separate notice, linked to the original publication, and is published by the Editorial Office. Prior to publication, the editorial team will attempt to inform authors and indicate the expected timeline. Should more information become available, the Expression of Concern may be replaced by a Correction notice, a Retraction notice or an absolving or clarifying statement, depending on the investigation outcomes.

Comments and Replies

If a reader has concerns about the reported results or methods used in a specific paper, they should approach the journal’s Editorial Office and if deemed reasonable, a Comment may be submitted for potential publication. Comments are short letters to the editors from readers who would like to publicly question a specific paper.

Once a Comment is approved for further peer review, the Editorial Office will then approach the authors of the paper in question and invite them to prepare a Reply to this Comment. The Reply allows the authors to publicly respond to the concerns pointed out by the reader. If the reader’s complaints are substantiated, and the authors are not able to adequately respond to the concerns, a Correction of the original paper may be published, or the paper can be retracted entirely. If authors do not provide a response by the deadline provided, or decide not to respond, the Comment may be published alongside a note that explains the absence of the Reply.

Both Comments and Replies will be reviewed to ensure that:

• the Comment addresses significant aspects of the original paper without becoming essentially a new paper;
• the Reply responds directly to any concerns, without becoming evasive;
• the tone of both publications is appropriate for a scientific journal.

While Comments can criticize the work, they should not criticize the work’s authors. Comments should not reiterate previously published disagreements. No more than one round of Comment and Reply will be facilitated where that discussion is from the same reader/s. MDPI journals only accept the submission of Comments on articles that were published by MDPI.

Further discussion may be recommended to take place in alternative forums, such as at https://sciprofiles.com/discussion-groups/public.

MDPI works closely with authors and editors to promote adherence to core principles of publication ethics, as expressed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We encourage the use of COPE resources, available on their website. All manuscripts should confirm to standards of ethical behaviour. Where we become aware of ethical issues, we are committed to investigating and taking necessary action to maintain the integrity of the literature.

Should you have any concerns about a published manuscript, we encourage you to use this form, providing as much information as possible. A member of our team will then be in touch.

You can also get in touch via email below.

Research Integrity and Publication Ethics team

publication.ethics@mdpi.com