AIJOSH welcomes original research articles and conceptual papers within its published Focus and Scope. Authors must prepare their submissions using the official journal template and comply with the following guidelines and editorial policies.

1. General Requirements

Manuscripts must be original, must not have been published or accepted for publication elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal. Authors must provide an originality declaration confirming these conditions.

All listed authors must meet the journal’s authorship criteria, approve the manuscript, and consent to its submission. Contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, and relevant ethical information must be disclosed accurately.

Manuscripts must be written in English. Use clear academic language, consistent terminology, and logically connected arguments. 

Submissions may undergo similarity screening. Matched text will be assessed in context; a similarity score alone does not establish plagiarism.

Prior dissemination as a preprint, an academic thesis or dissertation, or a conference abstract does not automatically preclude consideration. Authors must disclose such dissemination at submission, provide the relevant reference or link, and explain the relationship between the submitted manuscript and the earlier version.

Manuscripts substantially overlapping with previously published journal articles or full conference papers must be disclosed to the editor. Any consideration of an expanded or substantially revised work requires a clear explanation of its original contribution and appropriate acknowledgment of the earlier publication.

2. Manuscript Format

Prepare the manuscript in Microsoft Word using the official AIJOSH template.

• Main manuscript file: Editable .docx is preferred; .doc and .rtf are also accepted. PDF is not accepted as the main manuscript.

• Paper size: A4.

• Margins: 2.54 cm on all sides.

• Manuscript length: 3,000–7,000 words, including references, table text, and figure captions, unless the journal specifies a different limit for an article type.

• Article title: Maximum 15 words; Times New Roman, 13 pt, bold, Title Case, left-aligned. Do not capitalize the entire title.

• Author information: Times New Roman, 10 pt, left-aligned; full names without abbreviations or academic degrees, followed by affiliations and email addresses.

• Abstract: Academic English; one paragraph of 120–150 words; Calibri, 9 pt, justified.

• Keywords: Maximum five keywords or keyword phrases, separated by semicolons; Calibri, 9 pt.

• Main section headings: Times New Roman, 11 pt, bold, uppercase, left-aligned, without numbering.

• Subheadings: Times New Roman, 11 pt, bold, Title Case, left-aligned, without bullets or numbering.

• Sub-subheadings: Times New Roman, 11 pt, italic, Title Case, left-aligned, without bullets or numbering.

• Main text: Times New Roman, 11 pt, justified, single spacing; first-line indent of 1.25 cm.

• Block quotations: Times New Roman, 9 pt, justified; left and right paragraph indents of 1.25 cm.

• Figure captions and table titles: Times New Roman, 9 pt, centered; use Title Case as indicated in the template.

• Figure and table source statements: Times New Roman, 9 pt.

• Table content: Times New Roman, 9 pt, left-aligned unless the content requires another alignment.

• Reference list: Times New Roman, 11 pt, left-aligned, single spacing, with a 1 cm hanging indent.

• Citation style: APA Seventh Edition, using author–date citations.

Use the paragraph and character formatting provided in the official template. Single spacing means a line-spacing value of 1.0, not an exact line height of 1 pt. Remove instructional text, sample references, placeholder illustrations, lorem ipsum text, and the typography instruction page before submission.

Foreign-language and regional-language terms should be italicized where appropriate, except for proper names and expressions conventionally presented in roman type.

3. Manuscript Structure

Manuscripts must be organized according to their article type, research design, and analytical approach. The journal accepts Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Conceptual Papers, provided that they demonstrate methodological rigor, critical engagement with relevant scholarship, and an original contribution to the journal's focus and scope.

3.1. Original Research Article

Original Research Articles present findings from original empirical, historical, documentary, qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods research.

Research articles should follow the journal's adapted IMRaD structure, consisting of:

• INTRODUCTION

• METHOD

• RESULT AND DISCUSSION

• CONCLUSION

• REFERENCES

An optional list of informants may be included after the references where applicable.

3.2. Review Article

Review Articles critically examine, evaluate, and synthesize existing scholarly literature to advance understanding of a research problem, identify knowledge gaps, clarify theoretical or methodological debates, or propose directions for further investigation.

The journal accepts the following types of Review Articles:

3.2.1. Narrative Review

Recommended structure: INTRODUCTION – REVIEW APPROACH – THEMATIC DISCUSSION – CRITICAL SYNTHESIS – CONCLUSION – REFERENCES.

Narrative reviews provide critical and conceptually informed assessments of scholarly literature. Authors should explain the review's objectives, scope, approach to identifying and selecting literature, major scholarly debates, and original contribution.

The thematic discussion should organize existing knowledge into coherent analytical themes rather than summarize publications individually. The critical synthesis must identify agreements, disagreements, unresolved questions, and implications for future research.

Authors are encouraged to consult the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) as a quality-assessment reference. SANRA is not a mandatory reporting format.

3.2.2. Systematic Review

Required structure: INTRODUCTION – METHOD – RESULT AND DISCUSSION – CONCLUSION – REFERENCES.

Systematic reviews must employ explicit, transparent, and reproducible procedures for identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing relevant research.

The Method section must describe the review questions, information sources, search strategies, eligibility criteria, study selection procedures, data extraction, quality or risk-of-bias assessment where applicable, and synthesis methods.

Authors must follow the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines, together with applicable extensions, and submit a completed reporting checklist and study selection flow diagram.

3.2.3. Scoping Review

Required structure: INTRODUCTION – METHOD – RESULT AND DISCUSSION – CONCLUSION – REFERENCES.

Scoping reviews systematically map the characteristics, extent, distribution, and conceptual boundaries of existing research.

Authors must explain the review objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategies, evidence selection, data charting, and synthesis procedures. The discussion should identify research patterns, conceptual developments, knowledge gaps, and areas requiring further investigation.

Manuscripts must follow the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), including the relevant reporting checklist and study selection flow diagram.

3.2.4. Meta-analysis

Required structure: INTRODUCTION – METHOD – RESULT AND DISCUSSION – CONCLUSION – REFERENCES.

Meta-analyses quantitatively synthesize findings from multiple studies using appropriate statistical techniques.

Authors must describe eligibility criteria, search and selection procedures, data extraction, effect measures, statistical models, heterogeneity assessment, risk-of-bias evaluation, and sensitivity analyses where applicable.

Results should report relevant effect estimates, confidence intervals, heterogeneity statistics, and appropriate visualizations.

Meta-analyses conducted as part of systematic reviews must follow PRISMA 2020 and applicable extensions. Authors must justify their statistical methods and discuss limitations affecting the interpretation and generalizability of the synthesized findings.

3.2.5. Umbrella Review

Required structure: INTRODUCTION – METHOD – RESULT AND DISCUSSION – CONCLUSION – REFERENCES.

Umbrella reviews systematically examine and synthesize findings from multiple existing systematic reviews or meta-analyses addressing related research questions.

Authors must explain the review objectives, eligibility criteria, search strategy, selection procedures, methodological quality assessment, evidence overlap, and synthesis approach.

The discussion should evaluate the consistency, strength, limitations, and implications of the available evidence across included reviews.

Authors should consult the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and other established methodological guidance appropriate to their research design. 

3.2.6. General Requirements for Review Articles

All Review Articles must:

• Identify the specific review type in the manuscript title or abstract.

• Present clearly defined objectives, research questions, or analytical problems.

• Explain how the literature was identified, selected, evaluated, and synthesized, with methodological detail appropriate to the review type.

• Demonstrate critical engagement with relevant theoretical, conceptual, methodological, or empirical debates.

• Identify research gaps, limitations, and the article's original scholarly contribution.

• Avoid merely compiling or summarizing previous publications without substantive analysis.

• Follow applicable reporting guidelines and provide supporting checklists, protocols, flow diagrams, or supplementary materials where required.

3.3. Conceptual Paper

Conceptual Papers develop original theoretical arguments, analytical frameworks, conceptual interpretations, or critical perspectives grounded in relevant scholarly literature and, where appropriate, primary source materials.

These manuscripts may follow a flexible thematic structure but must include:

• An introduction establishing the conceptual problem, its significance, and the article's objectives.

• An explanation of the analytical approach, theoretical foundations, and selection of relevant literature or source materials.

• A coherent thematic discussion developing the central argument.

• A critical engagement with relevant theories, concepts, and competing interpretations.

• A conclusion explaining the article's conceptual contribution, implications, and limitations.

• References.

Conceptual Papers must offer a clearly articulated scholarly contribution rather than present personal opinions, descriptive essays, or unsupported theoretical assertions.

3.4. Title and Author Information

The title must not exceed 15 words and should identify the manuscript's central subject and contribution concisely. Use firm, concrete wording and avoid jargon or ambiguous terms. Specify the geographical setting, historical period, or population where relevant. Avoid unnecessary abbreviations and claims broader than the study supports.

For Review Articles, identify the review type in the title wherever possible, while observing the 15-word limit. If this is impractical, the review type must be clearly identified in the abstract.

Write author names without academic degrees or professional titles. Provide full institutional names rather than unexplained acronyms. Author order and identifying information must match the submission-system metadata.

Authors are encouraged to provide their ORCID iDs in the submission-system metadata where supported. Each ORCID iD must belong to the named author.

The number of author blocks in the template is illustrative and does not establish an authorship limit. Include only individuals who meet the journal's authorship criteria.

3.5. Abstract and Keywords

Write the abstract in clear academic English as a single paragraph of 120–150 words.

The abstract must contain the following essential elements, adapted to the manuscript type:

• Context or purpose: Establish the research problem, background, or significance.

• Research question or objective: Identify the central question, problem, or analytical aim.

• Method or analytical approach: Summarize the research design, review methodology, or conceptual approach.

• Principal findings or synthesis: Present the main empirical findings, synthesized evidence, or theoretical arguments.

• Conclusion or contribution: Explain the central conclusion and its scholarly implications.

For historical research, identify the spatial and temporal scope where relevant.

For Review Articles, indicate the type of review, the scope of literature examined, the synthesis approach, and the principal findings. Systematic and scoping reviews should also summarize the main eligibility and selection procedures, and the number of included studies where appropriate.

For Conceptual Papers, identify the central conceptual problem, analytical framework, principal argument, and contribution.

Avoid citations, undefined abbreviations, excessive methodological detail, and unsupported claims.

Provide a maximum of five keywords or keyword phrases representing the article's principal concepts and subject matter. Separate them with semicolons (;).

3.6. Introduction

Establish the research problem and its significance within relevant academic debates. Discuss previous studies critically, identify the research gap, and explain the article's contribution.

Present the relevant theoretical, conceptual, or historiographical framework and explain how it informs the study. State the research questions or objectives clearly.

For Review Articles, explain why the proposed review is necessary, how it differs from existing reviews, and what new understanding or synthesis it intends to provide. The rationale must be appropriate to the selected review methodology.

For Conceptual Papers, identify the theoretical or conceptual problem, explain the limitations or tensions in existing scholarship, and establish the central argument.

Demonstrate novelty through engagement with existing scholarship rather than unsupported claims that the topic has never been studied.

3.7. Method

Explain how the study was conducted and how its findings, synthesis, or arguments were developed. The information provided must be sufficiently detailed to allow readers to understand and critically evaluate the research process.

3.7.1. Original Research Articles

Describe the research design, selection of sources or participants, data collection, and analytical procedures as appropriate.

Identify primary and secondary materials and explain their relevance, scope, and limitations. Describe the procedures actually undertaken rather than compiling definitions of research methods.

Historical studies should explain source identification, selection, criticism, and interpretation, including relevant geographical and chronological boundaries.

Participant-based research should describe recruitment or selection, consent, confidentiality, and ethical approval where required.

3.7.2. Review Articles

The methodological explanation must correspond to the specific review type.

• Narrative reviews: Explain the literature identification and selection approach, thematic or conceptual boundaries, and methods of interpretation and synthesis. Exhaustive systematic searching is not mandatory, but the review process must be sufficiently transparent.

• Systematic reviews: Report databases and other information sources, complete search strategies, search dates, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, data extraction, quality or risk-of-bias assessment where applicable, and synthesis methods. Identify protocol registration where available and explain relevant deviations.

• Scoping reviews: Explain the review framework, eligibility criteria, search strategy, evidence selection, data charting, and approaches to mapping and presenting the evidence. Report protocol registration where applicable.

• Meta-analyses: Describe statistical models, effect measures, data extraction, heterogeneity assessment, risk-of-bias procedures, and sensitivity or subgroup analyses where appropriate.

• Umbrella reviews: Explain the identification and selection of existing reviews, methodological quality assessment, management of overlapping primary studies, and procedures for synthesizing findings across reviews.

Where applicable, authors must provide reporting checklists, flow diagrams, search strategies, and additional methodological documentation as supplementary materials.

3.7.3. Conceptual Papers

Explain the analytical approach, theoretical foundations, and criteria for selecting relevant scholarly literature or primary source materials. Describe how the concepts, arguments, or frameworks were examined, compared, interpreted, or developed.

3.7.4. Research Ethics

Participant-based research should describe recruitment or selection, informed consent, confidentiality arrangements, and ethical approval where required.

Where ethical approval is required, identify the approving committee and approval reference number, where available. If approval was formally waived or was not required under the applicable institutional or national framework, explain the basis for this status.

Authors must not claim ethical approval that was not obtained. Supporting documentation may be requested by the editor.

Identifying details should be provided separately during anonymous review where necessary.

For literature-based studies, authors must respect copyright, research integrity, proper attribution, and applicable restrictions governing the use of published or unpublished materials.

3.8. Results and Discussion

Present findings, synthesized evidence, or conceptual analysis in a coherent sequence that addresses the research questions and develops the article's central argument.

Use thematic subheadings where helpful. Use bold subheadings and italicized sub-subheadings, both without bullets or numbering.

For Original Research Articles and structured Review Articles, the main heading RESULT AND DISCUSSION must remain identifiable. Narrative Reviews and Conceptual Papers may use thematic headings consistent with their prescribed or justified structure.

3.8.1. Original Research Articles

Present empirical, historical, or documentary findings supported by appropriate evidence.

For historical studies, maintain a clear chronology where relevant and explain relationships among events, processes, conditions, and consequences. Chronological sequence alone should not be treated as evidence of causation.

Interpret findings in relation to the research framework and previous scholarship. Distinguish documentary evidence, participants' accounts, and the author's interpretation. Address significant limitations and alternative explanations.

3.8.2. Review Articles

Present the results of the literature synthesis according to the selected review methodology.

For systematic and scoping reviews, report the study selection results, characteristics of included studies, major findings or mapped evidence, and relevant methodological limitations.

For meta-analyses, present synthesized statistical estimates, confidence intervals, heterogeneity measures, and relevant additional analyses.

For umbrella reviews, compare the conclusions, methodological quality, consistency, and overlap of the included reviews.

For narrative reviews, organize the discussion around meaningful themes, debates, theoretical perspectives, or historical developments. Critically compare the literature and develop an integrative interpretation.

The discussion must move beyond describing individual studies to explain patterns, contradictions, gaps, and implications within the existing body of knowledge.

3.8.3. Conceptual Papers

Develop the article's theoretical or conceptual argument systematically through engagement with relevant scholarship and evidence.

Explain relationships among key concepts, examine alternative interpretations, and demonstrate how the proposed argument advances existing knowledge.

Avoid unsupported generalizations and distinguish established scholarly positions from the author's original propositions.

3.9. Tables and Illustrations

Number tables and figures consecutively and refer to each in the text.

Place table titles above tables and figure captions below figures. Provide source information and obtain permission where required.

Create tables using Microsoft Word's table function. Do not submit tables as screenshots or JPG images.

Provide photographs, maps, diagrams, and other graphical illustrations in JPG format with sufficient quality for publication. Maps should include relevant orientation, scale, legend, and source information.

Authors must verify the copyright or licensing status of third-party material, including photographs, maps, archival reproductions, questionnaires, and substantial text extracts. Where the intended use is not covered by an applicable license or legal exception, authors must obtain the necessary permission and retain documentary evidence for submission to the journal upon request.

Credit lines must identify any third-party material excluded from the license applied to the article.

For Review Articles, evidence summary tables, study characteristics tables, conceptual matrices, synthesis diagrams, and review flow diagrams should be included where appropriate.

Systematic and scoping reviews must provide the relevant study selection flow diagram. Meta-analyses should include forest plots and other statistical illustrations where appropriate to the analyses performed.

Large illustrations or supporting materials may be submitted as supplementary files. Explain their relationship to the manuscript.

Do not reproduce unedited statistical output or repeat every table entry in the discussion. Highlight the findings relevant to the argument.

3.10. Conclusion

Answer the research questions and articulate the article's principal contribution. Develop a concluding argument from the discussion rather than merely summarize the preceding sections.

For Original Research Articles, explain the significance of the findings and their implications for the research field.

For Review Articles, summarize the main synthesized findings, evaluate their implications for existing scholarship, and identify important limitations and directions for future research.

For Conceptual Papers, articulate the proposed theoretical or conceptual contribution and explain its relevance to further scholarly inquiry.

Acknowledge important limitations and avoid introducing new evidence or unsupported claims. Write the conclusion in connected prose.

Where relevant, authors are encouraged to explain how their research findings, theoretical contributions, or practical implications relate to one or more United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Such connections must be supported by the study's actual scope and findings. SDG alignment is not a mandatory requirement for publication.

3.11. Acknowledgments and Declarations

Place acknowledgments and declarations after the conclusion and before any endnotes and references.

Acknowledge individuals or organizations whose assistance does not qualify for authorship, and obtain permission before naming individuals.

Include the following statements where relevant:

• Author contributions: Use the CRediT taxonomy in accordance with the journal's Authorship and Contributorship policy.

• Funding: Identify funding sources and explain the funder's role.

• Conflicts of interest: Disclose relevant conflicts, including a declaration when none exist.

• Ethical approval and informed consent: Provide the relevant information where applicable.

• Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies: Follow the journal's Generative AI Policy. Where disclosure is required, identify the tool and explain its purpose and extent of use. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, and integrity of the submitted work. AI tools must not be listed as authors.

• Data and source availability: Explain where supporting data, source materials, review datasets, or analytical documentation can be accessed, or why access is restricted or not applicable.

The Data and Source Availability Statement should provide repository links, persistent identifiers, or archival collection details where available.

For Review Articles, identify the availability of supporting materials such as search strategies, screening records, extracted data, evidence tables, statistical datasets, analysis code, and review protocols, where applicable.

For Conceptual Papers and studies that did not generate a dataset, describe the availability of the documentary or published sources supporting the analysis.

Public sharing is not required where it would breach participant consent, confidentiality, copyright, archival access conditions, or other legitimate restrictions. Where access is restricted, explain the restriction and any permissible access procedure.

Respect confidentiality commitments in all acknowledgments and declarations. Provide identifying information separately during anonymous review and restore it before publication.

3.12. Notes and Informant Information

Use explanatory notes sparingly for contextual or archival information that cannot be incorporated conveniently into the text. Notes must not replace the author–date citation system.

Where necessary, place consecutively numbered endnotes before the References section.

An optional list of informants may appear after the references for research involving interviews or other relevant participant-based methods.

Use names, pseudonyms, or participant codes consistently with consent and confidentiality arrangements. Include only information necessary to understand the research; full addresses and other identifying details should not be disclosed unnecessarily.

For Review Articles and Conceptual Papers, a list of informants is generally unnecessary unless the manuscript includes separately collected participant-based evidence requiring appropriate documentation.

4. Citations and References

Use APA Seventh Edition consistently. A reference-management application such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote is required.

4.1. In-Text Citations

Use the author–date system:

• One author: (Surname, 2024).

• Two authors: (Surname & Surname, 2024).

• Three or more authors: (Surname et al., 2024).

• Direct quotation: (Surname, 2024, p. 25).

Use additional author names where necessary to distinguish otherwise identical shortened citations. Do not italicize “et al.”

Direct quotations require a page number or another appropriate locator. Apply APA 7 conventions for short quotations and block quotations.

Names must be represented accurately. Do not invent family names for authors whose published names do not follow a surname-based structure.

4.2. Reference List

Include at least 18 references, with approximately 80% journal articles and 20% books or other sources. Select references for their relevance and credibility. Historical and foundational sources remain appropriate where required by the research.

Every recoverable source cited in the text must appear in the reference list, and every listed reference must be cited. Apply APA exceptions appropriately for personal communications and research-participant material.

Arrange references alphabetically, following APA rules for multiple works by the same author.

Verify imported metadata against the original publication or an authoritative record. Check names, dates, titles, publication details, page ranges, and identifiers. Present DOIs in the format https://doi.org/ followed by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) by Crossref.

APA 7 does not require publisher locations for books. For ordinary webpages, italicize the webpage title rather than the website name.

Refer to the official APA Style reference examples for source-specific guidance.

4.3. Archival Sources and Citation Integrity

Archival references should identify the creator where known, date, document title or description, collection, file or item identifier, repository, and location as applicable.

Distinguish recoverable oral-history records from personal communications and interviews collected as research data. Respect consent and access restrictions.

Cite AIJOSH articles when relevant to the argument. Citation of the journal is not a condition of submission or acceptance. Avoid citation padding and unnecessary self-citation.

5. Submission and Editorial Assessment

Submit through the journal’s online submission system. Ensure that all metadata and files are complete and consistent.

A cover letter must accompany each submission. It should identify the manuscript title and article type, explain its principal contribution and relevance to AIJOSH, confirm originality and exclusive submission, and confirm approval by all authors. It should also disclose related preprints, theses, conference dissemination, or overlapping publications; identify any previous submission of the manuscript to AIJOSH; and provide the corresponding author’s contact details. Relevant conflicts of interest should be declared or explicitly stated as absent.

Manuscripts undergo editorial screening before external review. Suitable submissions proceed to independent peer review in accordance with the journal’s published Peer-Review Process policy.

Before completing submission, upload and verify the following files, following the review-file requirements:

• The manuscript containing the title, abstract, keywords, main text, references, tables, and figures.

• A cover letter and the required originality declaration.

• Similarity Check Report by Turnitin with max. 25% of similarity index.

• Supplementary materials, where applicable, with descriptive filenames and clear references in the manuscript.

• Permission documents, ethical approval or exemption documentation, and additional disclosure forms where applicable and requested.

Reviewer selection is the responsibility of the editors. Do not include reviewer nominations unless expressly requested under the journal’s published review policy. Specific, substantiated concerns about a potential conflict of interest may be communicated confidentially to the editor.

Authors will receive a written decision and relevant reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response explaining the changes made or providing a reasoned response to recommendations not adopted.

Consult the Peer-Review Process policy for the review model, reviewer requirements, and estimated timelines. Submission, revision, or payment of any applicable charges does not guarantee acceptance.

6. Acceptance and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and publication scheduling. Authors must review proofs carefully and obtain editorial approval for substantive changes.

Authorship changes must follow the Authorship and Contributorship policy. Applicable publication charges and payment arrangements are stated separately on the journal’s website.

Copyright ownership and permitted reuse are governed by the journal’s Copyright and Licensing Policy. Articles are published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). Authors must review the applicable terms before submission.

After publication, authors must promptly notify the journal if they discover a significant error or omission in their article. They are expected to respond to substantive editorial queries and cooperate in assessing concerns, including providing supporting data or source documentation where ethically and legally permissible. Corrections and other amendments will be handled under the journal’s Corrections policy, while scholarly commentaries and responses will follow its Post-Publication Discussions policy.

Authors are encouraged to deposit and share permitted versions of their work through institutional or subject repositories in accordance with the journal’s Electronic Archiving policy. Shared published versions should retain the article’s citation, DOI, and licensing information.

7. Templates and Related Policies

Use the official manuscript template appropriate to prepare your submission.

Manuscript Template (*.docx)

Cover Letter Template (*.docx)

Acknowledgement and Declarations (*.docx)

How to submit?

Read Make Submission

What files need to be attached?

1. Submission Manuscript (*.docx), max. 2MB in size
2. Cover Letter (*.pdf), max. 2MB in size
3. Similarity Check Report by Turnitin (*.pdf), max. 25% of similarity index
4. Acknowledgement and Declarations (*.pdf), max. 2MB in size
5. Supplementary file (if any/optional: high resolution of figure, table, chart, etc.)

Consult the following policy pages on this journal’s website before submission:

• Focus and Scope
• Authorship and Contributorship
• Conflicts of Interest
• Peer-Review Process
• Publication Ethics
• Copyright Statement
• Licensing Policy
• Generative AI Policy
• Author Fee
• Corrections and Retractions
• Post-Publication Discussions
• Electronic Archiving
• Online Submission

If a downloaded template contains older instructions that conflict with these guidelines, follow the current guidelines and contact the editorial office where clarification is needed.