Publishing Information

1. Publication Ethics Statement

Cultech Publishing follows the best practices such as those outlined by these organizations:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
Council of Scientific Editors (CSE)
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
World Medical Association (WMA)

2. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

Cultech is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Authors are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines when submitting their manuscripts:

2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, has not been published previously in any language, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Proper citation and acknowledgment must be provided for any material derived from other sources, including text, ideas, data, findings, images, and audiovisual materials.

Plagiarism, in all its forms, is strictly prohibited and constitutes a serious violation of publication ethics in Cultech. This includes, but is not limited to: Directly using others' work without quotation marks and proper citation. Rephrasing others' ideas or text without appropriate attribution; Using data, graphs, figures, or images from another source without clear permission and acknowledgment; Appropriating research hypotheses, methodologies, or conclusions without credit; Reusing substantial portions of one's own previously published work without transparent declaration and citation, which includes publishing the same manuscript in different journals and submitting articles that only have minor modifications from prior publications.

All submissions undergo similarity screening using iThenticate software. Manuscripts with iThenticate similarity scores exceeding our standards will not proceed to peer review. If plagiarism is detected during peer review or after publication, the manuscript may be subject to corrections, retractions, or revisions based on the severity, context, and impact on research integrity.

Cultech reserves the right to request original, high-resolution images and unprocessed data files for post-publication verification. All submitted data must be original and are expected to be free of inappropriate manipulation, which includes but is not limited to the exclusion of data points, data fabrication, the selective presentation of results to support a specific conclusion, and the intentional choice of analytical tools to achieve a desired outcome. Furthermore, image processing must not be used to misrepresent the original information. This prohibits introducing, enhancing, moving, or obscuring features; inappropriately grouping images from different sources or experiments; and making adjustments to contrast, brightness, or color balance that obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original.

Concerns regarding undeclared image modifications during manuscript processing or after publication will trigger an investigation, requiring authors to provide original data. If these cannot be obtained, peer review will be suspended until resolved. Confirmed irregularities may result in manuscript rejection or corrections/retractions.

2.2 Authorship Criteria

Cultech maintains a policy of transparent authorship. Accordingly, all submitting authors are required to provide a comprehensive Author Contributions statement with their manuscript. This statement should be incorporated into the main text within a distinct section, labeled "Author Contributions," and positioned before the reference list. Each contributor must be clearly identified by their initials or full name, with their individual roles explicitly described thereafter. Multiple roles per author are permissible and should be fully enumerated.

We recommend using the standardized Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to describe author contributions. This framework defines 14 distinct roles. Authors should select the role(s) that best describe their contribution(s).

(1) Conceptualization: Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.

(2) Methodology: Development or design of methodology; creation of models.

(3) Software: Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms.

(4) Validation: Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs.

(5) Formal Analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.

(6) Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.

(7) Data Curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.

(8) Writing – Original Draft: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft.

(9) Writing – Review & Editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision.

(10) Visualization: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/ data presentation.

(11) Resources: Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools.

(12) Funding Acquisition: Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

(13) Supervision: Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

(14) Project Administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

The order of authors should be a joint decision of all co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the final manuscript and agree to be listed in the proposed order.

In cases where two or more authors have made an equivalent core contribution, this may be indicated by a note (e.g., †These authors contributed equally to this work.) in the author superscript and the Author Contributions Statement.

2.3 Data Accuracy and Integrity

Authors must ensure that all data, results, and methodologies presented in the manuscript are accurate, objectively represented, and a complete reflection of the research conducted. This includes a thorough verification of all factual information, numerical data, statistical analyses, and representative images.

Any form of scientific misconduct, such as the fabrication of non-existent data, the falsification or manipulation of data to distort the true findings, or the selective reporting of results to misrepresent the overall conclusions of the research, is considered a serious ethical violation and is strictly prohibited. Digital images presented in the manuscript must not be manipulated in a way that could misinterpret the original data. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color must be applied evenly across the entire image and must not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original.

To uphold data accuracy and integrity principles, authors must retain or submit the raw, unprocessed data and all relevant source materials used to generate the figures, tables, and results reported in the manuscript. These materials must be retained for a substantial period following publication and be readily available for examination by the journal editors, peer reviewers, or other qualified scientific bodies upon request. Furthermore, authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data in recognized, discipline-specific public repositories where feasible and to cite the data persistently in the reference list. The manuscript must also provide a clear description of the data collection methods and any processing steps to ensure the reproducibility of the research.

Any suspected breach of above policies will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines . Should substantive inaccuracies or data manipulations be identified post-publication, it will result in the publication of a correction or the retraction of the article.

2.4 Conflict of Interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) exists when an author's private interests, whether financial, personal, professional, or political, could be perceived as inappropriately influencing the objectivity, judgment, or integrity of their research. It is essential to emphasize that the perception of a conflict carries the same significance as an actual conflict. To ensure transparency, maintain scientific integrity, and uphold public trust, all authors are required to fully disclose any interests that could be construed as influencing the work. The responsibility for disclosure rests with all co-authors and must cover the period from the inception of the research to its final publication. While the existence of a COI does not automatically imply wrongdoing, the principle of full transparency applies in all cases of uncertainty.

2.4.1 Financial Conflicts

Financial conflicts of interest may arise from various sources, including but not limited to: funding or research support from entities with a vested interest in the study's outcome; personal financial interests such as stocks, ownership, or patents with royalty potential; current or anticipated consulting, employment, or honoraria from relevant organizations; and substantial travel grants or logistical support provided for the conduct or presentation of the research.

2.4.2 Non-Financial Conflicts

Non-financial conflicts of interest encompass a broad spectrum of situations in which personal, professional, or ideological factors may unduly influence judgment. These can include, but are not limited to: personal relationships with individuals in affected organizations; direct academic competition or intellectual antagonism; affiliations with relevant advisory or advocacy groups; strongly held political, religious, or ideological beliefs pertaining to the research; and circumstances in which professional ambition or advancement could be affected by the study's outcomes.

2.4.3 Conflict of Interest Statement in the Manuscript

A "Conflict of Interest" statement must be included as a distinct section in the manuscript file, placed just before the reference list. The statement must be specific for each author. If no conflicts exist, authors must explicitly state so.

Examples:

With Conflicts: "Author A received research grants from [Company Name] for this study. Author B serves on the scientific advisory board of [Company Name] and holds stock options. The remaining authors declare no competing interests."

No Conflicts: "The author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest."

2.4.4 Disclosure During Submission

In addition to the statement within the manuscript, authors must fully and accurately declare any conflicts of interest using the journal's online submission system. The information provided in the system must be consistent with the statement in the manuscript.

2.4.5 Consequences of Non-Disclosure

Failure to disclose a significant conflict of interest may be considered a breach of publication ethics and can lead to serious consequences, including but not limited to: rejection of the manuscript, retraction of a published article, and notification of the authors' institution(s).

2.5 Ethical Approval

For studies involving human or animal subjects, authors must provide evidence of ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee. Informed consent must be obtained from participants, and a statement confirming this should be included in the manuscript.

2.5.1 Ethical Approval and Oversight

For all studies involving human subjects, human tissues, or animal experimentation, authors must declare within the manuscript that the research has received formal approval from an appropriate Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), Institutional Review Board (IRB), or Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) prior to the commencement of the study, and must explicitly state the name of the approving committee, the associated approval number or reference ID, and approval date, typically within the 'Methods' section.

2.5.2 Studies Involving Human Participants

For studies involving human participants, research must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must explicitly state that informed consent was obtained from all participants or their legally authorized representatives and describe the consent process used. Additionally, authors have an obligation to protect participant anonymity by removing all identifying information from the manuscript, and must obtain specific publication consent where any risk of identification exists.

2.5.3 Clinical Trials

All clinical trials must be registered in a publicly accessible registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, or any primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) prior to participant enrollment. The trial registration number and the name of the registry must be provided in the manuscript.

2.5.4 Studies Involving Animals

For research involving vertebrates or higher invertebrates, all procedures must be conducted in accordance with established animal welfare guidelines. Authors should explicitly describe the steps taken to adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replace, Reduce, Refine) in the study design and provide detailed descriptions of the methods used for anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia, ensuring they align with accepted veterinary best practices.

2.5.5 Studies Involving Plants

All experimental research on plants, whether involving cultivated or wild species, must comply with institutional, national, and international guidelines. For every submitted manuscript, comprehensive details on the plant material's origin and supporting genetic information must be provided. Specifically, for studies involving rare and non-model plants (beyond typical model organisms such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, or Oryza sativa), it is mandatory to deposit a voucher specimen in a publicly accessible herbarium or museum. This practice is crucial for future verification of material identity, especially in light of potential taxonomic revisions, and such specimens may be requested by peer reviewers or other researchers to confirm the study's botanical basis.

2.5.6 Studies Involving Cell Lines

In research involving cell lines, the Materials and Methods section must explicitly specify the origin of all cell lines used. For established cell lines, appropriate references (whether from published literature or commercial sources) should be provided along with their specific designations. For any previously unpublished de novo cell lines—including those obtained from other laboratories—authors must submit documentation of approval from an ethics committee or Institutional Review Board. For human-derived cell lines, verification of written informed consent is required. Furthermore, authors are strongly encouraged to provide recent authentication records (e.g., STR profiling data) and confirm the absence of mycoplasma contamination where applicable, to ensure the validity and reproducibility of the research findings.

2.6 Acknowledgment of Sources

A fundamental principle of academic and research integrity is the transparent and complete acknowledgment of all sources that have contributed to one's work. This extends beyond simply listing references and requires authors to formally recognize the various forms of support that enabled the research.

First and foremost, authors must disclose all sources of financial support, including grants, fellowships, and any other funding, typically by citing the full name of the funding agency and the associated grant number. Furthermore, it is essential to properly credit the origins of any data, materials, or code that were not generated by the authors themselves, ensuring reproducibility and giving credit to the original creators.

Crucially, all forms of intellectual contribution must be acknowledged. This includes appropriately crediting collaborators and contributors through co-authorship, following established guidelines for authorship. Individuals or groups who provided assistance that does not constitute authorship—such as technical support, data collection, statistical analysis, editorial feedback, or simply insightful discussions—should be explicitly mentioned in the Acknowledgments section. This practice not only ensures fairness and upholds ethical standards but also provides readers with a complete understanding of the work's provenance and the collaborative efforts behind it. Failure to properly acknowledge sources can constitute plagiarism or academic misconduct.

2.7 Multiple or Concurrent Submissions

Cultech is committed to upholding publishing ethics and considers practices such as simultaneous multiple submissions, substantial republication of previously reported work without transparent cross-reference, and the unjustified fragmentation of research into least publishable units to be breaches of professional conduct.

Authors must transparently declare any data, hypotheses, or samples shared with other works. Manuscripts found under simultaneous review elsewhere will be rejected immediately, while confirmed cases of redundant publication may lead to rejection, notification of the authors' institution, and potentially a temporary submission ban. However, authors are welcome to submit manuscripts previously rejected by another journal, provided they have addressed prior reviewers' comments or believe their work aligns better with our scope, and are expected to engage in the peer-review process in good faith, submitting to only one journal at a time.

2.8 Corrections and Retractions

Authors must notify the journal promptly if significant errors or inaccuracies are discovered in their work, either before or after publication.

2.8.1 Corrections

Once published, either online or in print, articles are typically considered the final version of record. However, in the event that minor errors are identified, such as typographical errors, inaccuracies in author affiliations, or other non-critical factual inaccuracies that do not affect the scientific integrity, results, or conclusions of the article, a correction may be issued at the Editors' discretion. This decision may follow an editorial assessment, which can be prompted by reader feedback, author self-identification, or editorial review. In many cases, authors are required to formally apply for a correction by submitting a signed request that details the error and provides the correct information. The journal will then publish a Correction Notice that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. This notice explicitly outlines the changes made and references the original publication, preserving the completeness and traceability of the scholarly record. To ensure transparency, the journal may release a new version of the article incorporating the corrections, while the original version is maintained in the archive for reference; however, it is the latest, corrected version that should be used for future citation.

2.8.2 Retractions

A Retraction will be considered by the journal when compelling evidence indicates that a published article contains serious flaws, research misconduct, ethical violations, or other issues that fundamentally compromise the validity of the findings or the reliability of the conclusions. The serious concerns include, but are not limited to:

Significant Errors: These encompass major inaccuracies that invalidate the study's core findings and conclusions. This includes irreproducible results, fundamental errors in experimental design or methodology, or miscalculations that drastically alter the interpretation of the data.

Ethical Breaches: This includes but is not limited to research without appropriate ethical approval, plagiarism, image manipulation, data fabrication or falsification, and unauthorized use of third-party data or materials.

Other Undermining Issues: Such as compromised peer review processes, failure to disclose major competing interests, or the identification of reporting errors that are both central to the findings and cannot be adequately addressed by a correction.

Decisions regarding retraction will be made in accordance with the guidelines and flowcharts provided by the COPE. Upon retraction, a formal notice will be published that is fully indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article itself will be digitally watermarked "Retracted" on each page, and its title will be prefixed with “Retracted Article” to clearly signal its invalid status to the academic community and alert readers to its status.

2.8.3 Changes to Authorship

Any change to the list of authors—including addition, removal, or reordering of names—after the initial submission of a manuscript is considered a serious matter. Such changes require strong justification, must align with the journal's authorship policy, and must be approved by the journal editor before they are finalized. The corresponding author is primarily responsible for initiating and managing any request for authorship change. The following guidelines and procedures must be strictly adhered to:

Prerequisites for Any Change: The request must be agreed upon by all co-authors, including any author being added or removed. The change must be for a legitimate reason, such as the addition of an individual who has made a substantial contribution that warrants authorship or the correction of an initial oversight.

Required Documentation: The corresponding author must submit a formal, signed request to the journal editorial office, which typically must include: (1) A detailed explanation for the proposed change, clearly stating the reason for the addition, removal, or reordering. (2) Written confirmation from all co-authors (via email or a signed letter) approving the change. This includes explicit consent from any author being added or removed.

Timing of Requests: Authorship changes are generally only considered before the manuscript is formally accepted. Requests made during the final stages of review or after acceptance are subject to stricter scrutiny and may be denied. Changes are typically not permitted after the article has been published, except to correct a critical error, which may be addressed via a formal corrigendum.

3. Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

As guardians of scholarly quality and integrity, reviewers are expected to uphold the highest ethical standards throughout the peer review process.

3.1 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the submitted manuscript and all related materials as strictly confidential documents, handling them with the utmost care. They must not share, discuss, disclose, or use the content for any purpose outside the authorized peer-review process. This includes a prohibition on creating unauthorized copies, storing the manuscript on insecure systems, or submitting any part of it into AI tools. Upon completion of the review, all local electronic copies must be deleted, and physical copies securely destroyed.

The confidentiality extends to the intellectual content of the manuscript. Reviewers are strictly prohibited from using any information, data, theories, or methodologies from the unpublished work in their own research, grants, or publications. They must not delegate the review task or discuss the manuscript with colleagues without first obtaining explicit permission from the journal editor. Any knowledge gained is to be used solely for formulating the review report.

Any breach of this confidentiality policy is a serious ethical violation and will be addressed according to COPE guidelines and the journal's policies. If a reviewer needs to consult a colleague on a specific aspect, they must seek prior authorization from the editor, ensure the assistant's identity is disclosed, and guarantee that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. External disclosure of information is forbidden without direct permission from the journal office.

3.2 Reviewers Principles

The integrity and quality of the peer review process depend on the expertise and impartiality of our reviewers. To ensure rigorous and meaningful evaluations, reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

Accept Assignments Within Expertise: Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that align closely with their specific, current field of knowledge. This ensures they can adequately assess the work’s novelty, methodology, and contribution to the field. If a manuscript falls outside their competence, they should decline the invitation promptly via the journal’s online system to avoid delays. When declining, we encourage suggesting qualified alternative reviewers to assist the editorial office.

Acknowledge Limitations: Even when a manuscript is broadly within a reviewer’s expertise, they should acknowledge any specific methodological or theoretical gaps in their knowledge and frame feedback accordingly.

Assess Objectively and Without Bias: Manuscripts must be evaluated solely on their intellectual and scientific merit—considering importance, originality, clarity, and validity—without regard to authors’ nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, seniority, affiliation, or political views.

Provide Constructive and Respectful Feedback: Reviews should be well-reasoned, respectful, and aimed at improving the quality of the work. Hostile, derogatory, or personally inflammatory comments are unacceptable.

Declare Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must decline to review if they have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with the authors or their institutions, or a strong bias regarding the subject matter, that could compromise objectivity.

Maintain Confidentiality: Unpublished content and knowledge of the review process must not be shared or used for any purpose other than the evaluation.

This journal is committed to upholding these standards to ensure a fair, unbiased, and constructive peer review process. Reviewers who do not adhere to these principles may be removed from our database.

3.3 Timeliness for Reviewers

We deeply value the expertise and dedication our reviewers bring to this essential service. Adherence to this deadline is of paramount importance to ensure a respectful and efficient process for authors and to maintain the journal's publication schedule.

We understand that unforeseen circumstances can arise. If a reviewer anticipates a delay or is unable to complete the review, we expect prompt notification to the handling editor as soon as possible. This proactive communication allows the editorial office to take necessary action. In such cases, we greatly appreciate suggestions for suitable alternative reviewers, which can significantly expedite the reassignment process.

While occasional delays with communication are understandable, consistent failure to meet deadlines may result in a reviewer being deactivated from our database.

3.4 Ethical Concerns

Reviewers play a vital role in upholding the ethical standards of scholarly publishing by remaining vigilant for potential misconduct beyond their assessment of scientific merit. This includes, but is not limited to, plagiarism (the unattributed use of another's ideas, text, or data), data falsification, and duplicate publication. Should a reviewer identify significant, improperly cited similarities between the submitted manuscript and other works, they have a responsibility to report these concerns.

All ethical concerns must be communicated directly and confidentially to the handling editor through the secure channel we provide. Reviewers should not attempt to investigate the matter themselves or contact the authors directly. Instead, they should provide the editor with specific references or details to aid the subsequent investigation.

Cultech treats all such concerns with the utmost seriousness and confidentiality. The editorial team will then conduct a thorough investigation following COPE or similar guidelines. Reviewers who identify ethical issues perform a critical service in protecting the integrity of the scientific record.

3.5 Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers are expected to verify the scholarly integrity and contextual accuracy of the manuscript's references. A key responsibility is to ensure that authors have appropriately cited all relevant prior work, providing proper attribution to the intellectual contributions that form the foundation of the presented research.

Reviewers should actively assess whether the reference list is comprehensive and current. If important published studies, particularly those foundational to the field or directly relevant to the manuscript's claims, are omitted, reviewers must highlight these specific omissions in their comments. This process ensures the work is properly situated within the existing scholarly conversation and helps authors strengthen their manuscript's validity. However, reviewers should refrain from insisting on the inclusion of their own work unless its omission constitutes a significant scholarly gap.

4. Ethical Guidelines for Editors

As guardians of the scholarly publication process, editors carry the fundamental responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality assurance. Their role requires unwavering commitment to ethical principles that ensure the credibility of published research and sustain the academic community's trust. The following comprehensive guidelines establish the framework for editorial conduct at this journal.

4.1 Editorial Independence and Fairness

Editorial decisions must be grounded exclusively in the manuscript's scholarly significance, methodological soundness, and conceptual originality. These determinations should remain entirely insulated from commercial considerations, institutional pressures, or personal relationships. Editors must implement systematic safeguards to prevent any form of discrimination based on authors' geographical origin, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, or seniority. The evaluation framework should be consistently applied across all submissions, with special attention given to ensuring equitable consideration for works originating from diverse academic traditions and developing regions.

4.2 Confidentiality

The principle of confidentiality extends to all components of the submission and review ecosystem. Editors must ensure the secure handling of manuscript files, reviewer reports, and author correspondence throughout the editorial workflow. This includes protecting reviewer identities in double-blind review systems and safeguarding unpublished research data from unauthorized access. Confidentiality obligations persist beyond the initial publication decision, requiring careful archival and disposal procedures for sensitive manuscript information.

4.3 Conflict of Interest

Editors must maintain constant vigilance in identifying actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. These include not only direct financial interests but also intellectual conflicts arising from competitive research programs, personal relationships with authors, or institutional affiliations that might compromise impartial judgment. When conflicts are identified, editors should immediately recuse themselves from the decision-making process and document the transfer of editorial responsibility. Cultech maintains a public record of editorial conflicts and their management to ensure procedural transparency.

4.4 Ethical Oversight

Proactive ethical supervision requires editors to implement systematic screening for plagiarism, data manipulation, and image integrity issues across all submissions. Editors should employ specialized software tools while recognizing their limitations and the necessity of human expert judgment. When ethical concerns emerge, editors must follow established investigative protocols in consultation with COPE guidelines, institutional authorities, and subject matter experts. The editorial responsibility includes post-publication vigilance and appropriate corrective actions when ethical violations are confirmed.

4.5 Timeliness

Efficient process management demands that editors establish clear timelines for each editorial phase while maintaining flexibility for complex cases requiring extended review. Cultech implements automated tracking systems to monitor submission progress while ensuring personal editorial engagement at critical decision points. Editors must balance the imperative for timely decisions with the necessity of comprehensive evaluation, particularly for multidisciplinary works requiring multiple specialist reviews.

4.6 Peer Review Process

Editors should cultivate and maintain a diverse reviewer database representing global expertise across disciplinary specialties and methodological approaches. The reviewer selection process must consider not only subject matter expertise but also demonstrated review quality and reliability. Editors have responsibility for mentoring new reviewers, providing constructive feedback on review quality, and recognizing outstanding peer review contributions. Cultech supports editorial discretion in reconciling conflicting reviews while maintaining transparency about the decision-making rationale.

Reviewers should be selected based on their expertise and ability to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript.

Editors should not influence the outcome of the peer review and must remain impartial throughout the process.

4.7 Transparency and Accountability

Cultech maintains publicly accessible documentation of all editorial policies, review procedures, and ethical guidelines. Correction protocols ensure that errors in published works are promptly addressed with appropriate levels of notification—from minor errata to full retractions—with clear cross-referencing between original publications and subsequent corrections. The editorial office documents and reviews all appeals of editorial decisions through established grievance procedures.

4.8 Respect for Authors and Reviewers

Editors should foster a scholarly environment characterized by mutual respect and constructive dialogue. This includes ensuring that reviewer comments maintain professional tone and substantive focus, while protecting authors from ad hominem criticisms or non-substantive objections. Cultech provides authors with detailed guidance for revising manuscripts and formal appeal mechanisms for editorial decisions. Editors also protect reviewers from inappropriate author responses and acknowledge reviewer contributions through formal recognition programs.

1. Publishing Standards and Guidelines

Cultech Publishing follows the following guidelines and standards:

Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE)
CAse REports (CARE)
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ)
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)
Council of Scientific Editors (CSE)
Diagnostic/prognostic studies (STARD and TRIPOD)
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT)
Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)
Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL)
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and protocols (PRISMA-P)
World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
World Medical Association (WMA)

2. Type of Peer Review

Cultech adopts a rigorous double-anonymized peer review process to validate published articles and uphold scientific rigor. Under this framework, reviewers and authors remain anonymous during and after the review process: reviewers are unaware of authors’ identities, and authors receive no disclosure of their evaluators. This approach mitigates potential biases, ensuring manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic quality and scientific merit, excluding authors’ personal backgrounds, gender, nationality, academic status, or prior publication history.

Each article undergoes external peer review, typically assessed by at least two experts in the manuscript's subject matter and/or research methodology before a final acceptance decision.

To maintain review integrity, authors must thoroughly anonymize their manuscripts before submission by:

• Removing all personally identifiable information (names, affiliations) from the main textand accompanied by a separate title page (containing authors’ names, affiliations, contact information, and other non-anonymized details as required).

• Using third-person when citing own previous work (e.g., "As shown in Prior et al. (2020)..." instead of "We previously demonstrated...").

• Ensuring figures, tables, and supplementary materials contain no identifying information.

• Excluding acknowledgments, funding statements, and conflict of interest declarations from the review version.

• Verifying filenames and file metadata contain no author information.

Only the title page, cover letter, and LaTeX source files (if applicable) should contain identification details, submitted separately for editorial use only. All files shared with reviewers must be meticulously checked to prevent inadvertent disclosure of author identity.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is a critical step in our rigorous peer review, where candidates are chosen for domain expertise relevant to the manuscript — evidenced by their publication records, academic backgrounds, and prior review experience. Beyond domain proficiency, reviewers must demonstrate the ability to comprehensively assess the manuscript’s scientific rigor, originality, and overall quality; commit to delivering high-quality, constructive, and timely reviews while remaining responsive throughout the process; and adhere to strict standards of professionalism, confidentiality, and ethical conduct at all review stages.

In addition, the editorial team meticulously screens potential reviewers for conflicts of interest, including personal relationships, direct collaborations, financial ties, or institutional affiliations with authors. We are dedicated to maintaining a diverse, qualified reviewer pool to ensure the fair and unbiased assessment of all submissions.

4. Review Process

4.1 Submission and Initial Assessment

Upon submission, the editorial department will first conduct a plagiarism check via iThenticate and verify that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s scope and format guidelines, while assessing its originality, scientific merit, and basic quality standards.

Following these initial checks, the editor will determine whether the manuscript is suitable to proceed to peer review. If the manuscript is confirmed to meet the aforementioned criteria—including sufficient scholarly novelty, methodological soundness, and meaningful scientific contribution—and adheres to academic ethics standards, the editor will arrange for it to undergo further peer review. Conversely, manuscripts that are clearly out of scope, contain major methodological flaws, lack adequate scientific justification, or fail to comply with academic ethics may be rejected directly at this stage. This streamlined process ensures the efficiency of the review workflow and conserves valuable academic resources.

Manuscripts that pass the initial review will be assigned a unique manuscript number. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards may be returned to the authors at this stage and will not be sent for further review.

For the specific policy on preventing plagiarism, please refer to our Publishing Ethic Policy.

4.2 Peer Review Process

This journal adopts a double-blind peer review system, wherein reviewers and authors remain unaware of each other’s identities. Eligible manuscripts are assigned to two or more expert reviewers with relevant subject-specific knowledge and expertise. Reviewers will evaluate the manuscript’s originality, scientific rigor, methodological soundness, significance, and clarity, and offer specific recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection. Upon completion of the peer review process, all reviewers’ evaluations, comments, and recommendations are collated and forwarded to the journal editor.

4.3 Editor Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to render one of the following decisions:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript will be directly sent to the final review without revisions.

• Revisions Required: Revisions (minor or major) are required. Authors must address the specified issues and submit a revised manuscript, which will undergo re-review process —this process may be repeated if additional revisions are deemed necessary. Only upon passing the re-review will the manuscript proceed to the final review.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

A detailed decision letter will be sent to the authors, including the reviewers’ feedback.

4.4 Revisions

If the editor team deem that your manuscript possesses publication potential but requires further refinement, you will be invited to submit a revised version—this must be resubmitted within the stipulated time-frame.

To complete this re-submission, the following materials are required:

Revised Manuscript: Incorporate all necessary amendments based on the comments from the reviewers and the editor. Ensure all changes are clearly marked or annotated in the document to facilitate easy identification.

Response Letter: Prepare a detailed response letter that addresses every comment raised by the reviewers and the editor. For each point, clearly explain the modifications made to the manuscript in response.

Upon re-submission, the revised manuscript is typically reassigned to the original reviewer. The editor may then make a decision based on their assessment of your revisions and response letter.

4.5 Final Decision

After all revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production.

4.6 Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial rejection decision have the right to initiate an appeal process. To do so, authors must submit a formal appeal letter that clearly outlines the specific grounds for their objection, supported by relevant evidence or detailed reasoning justifying a re-evaluation. The appeal must be submitted in writing to EEEE with the word "Appeal" included in the subject line. Appeals submitted via phone or other informal channels, or directed to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, will not be accepted.

4.6.1 Grounds for Consideration

An appeal will only be considered under the following circumstances:

• The reviewer(s) or editor(s) are deemed to have made a significant factual errorin evaluating the manuscript.

• The objectivity of the reviewer(s) or editor(s) may have been compromised by a documented conflict of interest.

If either of these grounds is substantiated, the original decision may be overturned.

4.6.2 Appeal Review Process

Upon receipt, the appeal case will be assigned to a senior editor or an independent advisor who was not involved in the original decision. The assigned individual will conduct a thorough review, assessing the fairness and rationale of the prior review process and editorial judgment, and determining whether the issues raised warrant reversal of the original decision.

4.6.3 Grounds for Immediate Rejection

Cultech reserves the right to reject an appeal without further review if:

• The rejection was based on integrity concerns (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).

• The case involves multiple submissions or articles.

• The appeal, in Cultech’s judgment, fails to adequately address the substantive issues underlying the editorial decision.

The decision on the appeal is final and without exception.

4.7 Production

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production phase.

5. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and correspondence are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscripts with anyone outside the review process.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if a conflict exists.

Editors will ensure that the peer-review process remains unbiased and impartial.

7. Appeals and Re-reviews

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or additional reviewers.

Revised manuscripts may be subjected to re-review by the original or new reviewers.

8. Ethical Standards

Cultech adheres to the COPE for ethical peer-review practices.

Any ethical concerns raised during peer review, such as plagiarism or data manipulation, will be investigated thoroughly.

9. Transparency and Accountability

Cultech maintains detailed records of the peer-review process for all manuscripts.

Editors and reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and respectful feedback to authors.

By adhering to this peer-review policy, Cultech ensures the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research that advances scientific knowledge.

10. Artificial Intelligence

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in scientific publishing. Through their professional evaluations and recommendations, they guide editorial decisions to ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily based on their in-depth understanding of the subject matter or methodologies involved in the work being assessed - an expertise that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Reviewers are accountable for the accuracy of their reports and the perspectives they present, with the peer-review process operating on principles of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors.

While generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are advancing rapidly, they still have significant limitations. They may lack the most current knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Additionally, manuscripts may contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared beyond the peer-review process. For these reasons, Cultech does not permit the use of large language models and other generative AI tools.

Cultech Publishing is committed to upholding the highest standards of open science by providing immediate, free, and unrestricted access to scholarly research. This policy outlines our approach to open access (OA) publishing, detailing the models, financial structure, and author rights and responsibilities, in alignment with practices recommended by major international committees and adopted by leading OA publishers.

1. Definition of Open Access

OA refers to the practice of providing free and unrestricted access to research outputs, such as journal articles, conference papers, datasets, and other scholarly works, without requiring a subscription or payment. OA allows readers to access, read, download, and reuse the content without financial or legal barriers, increasing the visibility and impact of research. The journals of Cultech Publishing are gold open-access journals. Upon publication, all articles are immediately and permanently available online for everyone to read, download, and redistribute at no cost.

2. Article Processing Charges

The journals of Cultech Publishing are gold OA journals. The only fee that authors need to pay is the Article Processing Charges (APCs). This fee is collected in a one-time payment and is intended to cover the entire cost of the process from peer review to the online publication of the paper. Apart from this, there are no other mandatory additional charges.

The APC you have paid will be used to ensure that your research results can be published and widely disseminated in a high-quality manner. The specific services covered include:

• Peer review management: A professional internal editing team is responsible for coordinating the entire process, including inviting reviewers, sending review invitations, collecting review reports, and serving as a communication bridge between authors, reviewers, and editors, ensuring a fair and efficient review process.

• Professional editing and layout: This includes copy editing, layout design, and generating versions in various formats (such as PDF) to enhance the clarity and standardization of the language, ensuring the readability and professionalism of the manuscript.

• Long-term archiving: Ensure the long-term online archiving and accessibility of the paper.

• Journal platform maintenance: Operate and maintain a stable and secure online publishing platform that enables global readers to freely and unlimitedly read and download.

• Other editing assistance: Provide author support services throughout the submission and publication process, such as promptly answering author questions and assisting in improving the manuscript format.

Current APC: The page charges for all article types (research, review, case report) are shown on the journal's homepage, and the content will be published under a CC BY license. The journals of Cultech Publishing offers full or partial fee waivers for eligible articles from low- and middle-income economies.

3. APC Exemption Criteria

Cultech offers full or partial equitable waivers for accepted articles from low-income and middle-income economies. Eligibility is based on the Research4Life eligibility criteria. Countries listed in Group A are eligible for the full waiver and countries listed in Group B are eligible for the partial waiver. The waiver is automatically applied based on the Corresponding Author's country information provided during submission.

To determine your eligibility, visit the Research4Life criteria.

Please be advised that Cultech will only refund an APC if an editorial error has resulted in a failure to publish an article under the OA terms selected by the authors. APCs will not be refunded when articles are withdrawn voluntarily prior to publication as a result of author error or misconduct.

Eligibility criteria

1). Countries, areas, or territories with a total GNI above US$ 1 trillion are not eligible for Research4Life Programmes regardless of other factors.

2). Core Offer Group A – Free Access

All countries, areas, or territories fulfilling any of the below criteria

United Nations Least Developed Countries List and/or

Total Gross National Income (GNI) is at or less than $500 million

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 5 billion where Gross National Income per capita (GNIpc) at or less than US$ 10,000

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 15 billion where GNIpc at or less than US$ 3000

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 200 billion where:

Human Development Indicator (HDI) is at or less than 0.60 and/or

GNIpc is at or less than US$ 1500

Interpretation:

A country, area, or territory must fulfill at least one of the four factors designated by solid bullet points.

The last factor is a complex one. In order to fulfill it, the country, area, or territory must meet the main criterion of the solid bullet point and at least one of the sub-factors designated by the hyphens under it.

3). Core Offer Group B – Fee-based access

GNIpc is at or less than US$ 6300 where Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) is at or less than 55

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 1.5 billion and/or

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 25 billion where GNIpc is at or less than US$10,000 and/or

Total GNI is at or less than US$ 300 billion where:

HDI is at or less than 0.67 and/or

GNIpc is at or less than US$ 6300

Interpretation:

A country, area, or territory must fulfill at least one of the four factors designated by solid bullet points.

The second and third factors are complex ones. In order to fulfill them the country, area, or territory must meet both criteria listed in the solid bullet.

The last factor is a complex one. In order to fulfill it, the country, area, or territory must meet the main criterion of the solid bullet point and at least one of the sub-factors designated by the hyphens under it.

Check which countries, areas and territories are eligible for the Research4Life core offer

Eligible categories of institutions are: national universities, professional schools (medicine, agriculture, pharmacy, public health, engineering, etc.), research institutes, teaching hospitals and healthcare centers, government offices, national libraries, agricultural extension centers and local non-governmental organizations.

4. Copyright & License

4.1 Copyright

© 2026 by the authors. The authors retain the copyright of this article.

This means:
Authors of articles published in Cultech retain the copyright of their articles.
Authors grant Cultech a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
Authors will retain broad re-use rights to their article content for their future publications.
When Cultech publishes the article we will apply a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Everyone has free and unlimited access to the full-text of all articles published in Cultech.
Everyone is free to re-use the published material if proper accreditation/citation of the original publication is given.
No special permission is required to reuse all or part of article published by Cultech, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. Reuse of an article does not imply endorsement by the authors or Cultech.
No special permission is required for authors to submit their work to external repositories.

This policy extends to all versions of a paper: submitted, accepted, and published.

4.2 License

This article is published in the Cultech by Cultech Publishing Sdn. Bhd. under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited.

5. Impact and Visibility

OA publication significantly increases the reach and impact of research. Studies have shown that OA articles typically receive more downloads and citations. By publishing in Cultech, authors benefit from:

Greater Reach and Impact: Your work is freely accessible to a global audience, which typically leads to higher visibility, more downloads, and an increased citation count.

Rigorous Peer Review: Every article undergoes a thorough and impartial peer review process, ensuring the quality and integrity of published research.

Rapid Publication: We are committed to efficient editorial handling and rapid online publication, allowing you to share your findings with the academic community without delay.

Copyright Retention: Authors retain the copyright to their work, which is published under a Creative Commons license.

Unrestricted Reuse: The Creative Commons license permits others to freely share and adapt the work, provided proper attribution is given, facilitating broader dissemination and collaboration.

Funder Compliance: Meets the OA mandates of an increasing number of research funders and institutions worldwide.

Expert Editorial Oversight: Our journal is supported by an international board of esteemed editors, who guide the journal's vision and uphold high academic standards.

6. OA Compliance and Permanent Identifiers

To ensure the long-term preservation and citability of research, all published articles are assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The DOI provides a permanent link to the article on our website. Authors are also encouraged to deposit their published articles in institutional repositories to further enhance accessibility and compliance with funder mandates.

7. OA Publishing Ethics

Cultech adheres to the strict ethical guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our commitment to ethical OA publishing encompasses:

Rigorous Peer Review: All submissions undergo a thorough, unbiased, and confidential peer-review process.

Data Transparency: We encourage authors to make the data underlying their research publicly available in appropriate repositories.

Research Integrity: We maintain the highest standards of integrity and will address any cases of ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, promptly and in accordance with COPE flowcharts.

8. Policy Version & Updates

This policy was last updated on 2026-1-8. We may update this policy periodically. The most current version will always be available on our website.