Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) is dedicated to advancing the understanding of psychology through the publication of innovative research across various subfields. The journal aims to publish high-quality research that contributes to the advancement of psychological science, encourages interdisciplinary studies, and provides a platform for disseminating findings with practical implications for mental health, education, and social policy. Furthermore, it promotes diversity and inclusivity in psychological research and practice.

The journal's scope encompasses several key areas. In Community Psychology, it focuses on the dynamics within communities and the development of interventions to enhance community well-being. Clinical Psychology research includes the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health disorders, along with the development of therapeutic techniques and interventions. Social Psychology investigates how social interactions and contexts influence individual behaviors, thoughts, and emotions.

In the field of Developmental and Educational Psychology, the journal publishes research on psychological changes across the lifespan, including cognitive and emotional development, and explores educational interventions and learning processes. Human Behavior studies explore various aspects such as motivation, decision-making, and behavior modification. Research related to Mental Health aims to understand factors contributing to mental health and illness and develop strategies to promote mental well-being.

The Journal of Psychological Perspective invites submissions that are methodologically rigorous and theoretically grounded, with the potential to impact both academic understanding and real-world practices. JoPP embraces the use of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.


Section Policies

Original Research Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Systematic Literature Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

All submissions to the Journal of Psychological Perspectives (JoPP) undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality and validity of the published research. The journal operates a double-blind peer review process, meaning that the authors and the reviewers are anonymous. The review process is carried out by experts in the relevant fields of study, who evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

  1. Initial evaluation: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board will conduct an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the scope and focus of the journal and adheres to the publication conditions. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further review. The manuscript with a higher than 15% similarity will be rejected in this stage. The editorial office will check the article formatting and citation styles and adhere to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are unmet, the manuscript will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes approval, it will be sent to reviewers. The average time from submission to the first decision will be 6 week.
  2. Assignment of reviewers: The editorial board will select at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study and have experience in the research area the manuscript covers. The reviewers will be blinded to the identity of the authors, and the authors will be blinded to the identity of the reviewers. The listing of the names of the authors, acknowledgments, and references to author contributions must be removed from the manuscript and posted in the Title page file. The assigned editor will then send invitations to reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with differing institutions from those of the corresponding authors. Moreover, reviewers will consider the invitation according to their own scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. Our journal is committed to assigning reviewers within two weeks.
  3. Review process: The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance to the field of study. The reviewers are usually given 4-8 weeks to review the research work. They will provide constructive feedback to the authors to help improve the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, rejection, or revision of the manuscript.
  4. Decision: The editor-in-chief will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request a revision of the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and the manuscript's adherence to the publication conditions. If the comments/responses of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional individual to review the manuscript before making the final decision. The academic editor will send a decision (with rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author via the online system, along with any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers. As our journal adopts the double-blind, peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions remain anonymous.
  5. Revision process: If the manuscript is accepted with revision, the authors will be asked to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit it for further review. Re-submitted material must include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter. The author is usually given two weeks (for minor revisions) and four weeks (for major revisions) to revise the manuscript. The major revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers, who will evaluate whether the revisions adequately address their feedback. For minor revisions, the subsequent review process may not be necessary.
  6. Publication: Once the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the authors will be asked to submit a final version of the manuscript, which will be copyedited and formatted for publication in the journal.

This peer review process will ensure that all manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Psychological Perspectives are evaluated based on the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct and that only the highest quality research is published.


Publication Frequency

Journal of Psychological Perspective is published twice a year, June and December.


Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.



This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Publication Ethics

Journal policies on authorship and contributorship

Authorship credit should be based on any or all of the following:

1) Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

3) Final approval of the version to be published.

All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.

The contributions of all authors must be described. The submitting author is responsible for providing the contributions of all authors at submission. We expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their contributions ahead of this time. Contributions will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect contributions to the work. This elaboration is based on COPE's principle of Authorship and contributorship.


Contributor Role

Role Definition


Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.

Data Curation

Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data, and maintain research data for initial use and later re-use.

Formal Analysis

Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.

Funding Acquisition

 Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.


 Conducting a research and investigation process, explicitly performing the experiments or data/evidence collection.


 Development or design of methodology; creation of models

Project Administration

 Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.


 Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.


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


 Preparation, creation, and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.

Writing – Original Draft Preparation

 Creation and/or presentation of the published work, explicitly writing the initial draft (including substantive translation).

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 – including pre- or post-publication stages.


How will the journal handle complaints and appeals?

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to journal editor decisions and complaints about a journal's editorial management of the peer review process.

If you wish to appeal a journal editor's decision, please submit an appeal letter to the journal's online editorial office. Please address this to the Editor and explain the basis for an appeal. You should:

 Detail why you disagree with the decision. Please provide specific responses to any of the Editor's and/or reviewers' comments that contributed to the rejection decision.

  • Provide any new information or data you would like the journal to consider.
  • Provide evidence if you believe a reviewer has made technical errors in assessing your manuscript.
  • Include evidence if a reviewer may have a conflict of interest.

This elaboration is based on COPE's principle of Complaints and appeals

Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests

A competing interest — often called a conflict of interest — exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain or personal rivalry). It may arise for the authors of an article in the Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) when they have a financial interest that may influence, probably without their knowing, their interpretation of their results or those of others. We believe that to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, we should know about any competing interests that authors may have and that if we publish the article, readers should know about them too.

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) Policies on Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) Editors strongly encourage authors to include additional material data sets and codes that demonstrate the results shown in their final article. Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) journal editors may set their policies based on this broad principle, and authors may request a waiver for reasons of confidentiality or security.

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) also introduces a basic data-sharing policy across all its journal titles. This policy will encourage authors to share and make the data underlying their published article publicly available when it does not violate the protection of human subjects or other valid subject privacy concerns.

Authors will be further encouraged to cite any data referenced in their paper. Whether this has been created by the author or someone else, cited data sets should be included in the reference list. Finally, authors will be encouraged to include a data availability statement. Data-sharing policies will be set at the journal level in consultation with editors, relevant societies, or other stakeholders.


Journal's policy on ethical oversight 

The journal is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research publication. The journal attaches particular importance to ethical values such as honesty, excellence in research practice, transparency, open communication, and respect. It follows the guidelines the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) set. The authors agree to follow its ethical guidelines by submitting a manuscript to the journal.

Authorship: Anyone who has made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data; drafts the work or revises it critically; approves the final version of the work; agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work should be listed as an author of the manuscript. Anyone who contributed to the work but failed to meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged. The corresponding author is the person who handles the correspondence during the publication process and has the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors in all matters related to the publication of the article. The corresponding author continues to serve as the main point of contact for any inquiries after the article is published.

Conflict of Interest: To ensure that the articles published in the journal are free from inappropriate external influence, authors must declare any potential conflict of interests that may affect the objectivity or integrity of the article. These conflicts may be financial, non-financial, professional, or personal in nature.

Funding: Authors must provide details of the source of funding received during the manuscript preparation as required by the funding and grant-awarding bodies.

Studies Involving Human or Animal Subjects: Studies involving human or animal subjects must abide by institutional and national policies for ethical conduct and include proper documentation such as ethical committee approvals, informed consent, and other legal permissions.

Ethical Oversight: Research works that include potentially hazardous chemicals or procedures must clearly state the details. If necessary, the submission must be accompanied by the appropriate ethical documentation.

Data Sharing and Availability: The journal expects the authors to be open and transparent about the data, code, or other materials related to the published content. To ensure that the findings of the study are reproducible and reliable, authors are encouraged to deposit data in a suitable repository and describe where the data may be found.

Advertising: The journal allows limited and targeted advertising on its website to promote selected research content published by the journal publisher exclusively.

Complaints and Appeals: Anyone who may be concerned that publication ethics guidelines or principles are not followed should raise their complaints and appeals with details and documents about the case. Complaints and appeals should be directed to jopp.ukp@gmail.com. All complaints and appeals will be handled rigorously according to the best practices of COPE.

Corrections and Retractions: The journal will publish a corrigendum or an erratum if an error is found during post-publication. Retractions are issued if the errors are significant and results and conclusions are no longer reliable. Suppose serious ethical malpractices such as plagiarism and duplication are discovered in a published article. The journal reserves the right to retract the article and take up the matter with relevant academic bodies or institutions.


Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Licensing Policy

Intellectual Property and Copyright

Authors certify that their submitted manuscript (and any supporting items) are their own intellectual property, and the copyright has not been transferred to others.

Authors certify that the manuscript contains no plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or manipulated citations and that the manuscript conforms to Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) authorship policies.

Authors certify that for any copyrighted tables, figures, data, text, etc., permission has been obtained from the copyright holders to reproduce.

All manuscripts, revisions, drafts, and galleys remain the intellectual property of the author(s). Except as stated in the agreed license, the author(s) retain the copyright to their work.

Authors retain the full right to modify, reshare, repost, or archive any version of their copyrighted work.

All review comments and reports remain the intellectual property of the reviewer or Editor. Except as stated in the agreed license, the author(s) retain the copyright to their work.

Authors, reviewers, and editors agree to keep all communications, comments, or reports from reviewers or editors confidential.

Reviewers and editors agree to keep all manuscripts, revisions, and drafts confidential, except the final published galley(s).


Authors agree that all accepted manuscripts, galleys, and submitted supporting documents are immediately and irrevocably released under a Creative Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

The license will be indicated on the front page of each online article galley. The license will also be indicated within each issue of the print edition.


Suspicion of violations of this policy should be made to the editor-in-chief via the Complaints and Appeals process.


Journal's options for post-publication discussions and corrections

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) recognizes the significance of Post Publication Discussions on published research, and our journals are open to such discussions.

Post-Publication Discussions may be published online after review and are usually accompanied by a response from the original authors.

Instructions to Authors, available at individual journal's website, may be referred to for details of submission criteria and peer review process for post-publication discussions.

Handling Post-Publication Matters:

To maintain the integrity of scientific research, Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) carries out investigations regarding the concerns raised by authors and/or readers. However, authors are always allowed to respond to all complaints/ comments. We may require reviewers to go over the original data and consult with experts involved in order to solve and conclude the investigation. The following actions may be taken depending on Post-publication discussions and corrections severity of the issue:

A Corrigendum may be published.

An Editor's Note and/or Editorial Expression of Concern may be published; a second notification might also be published once the investigation is complete.

The article may be retracted.

If the investigation outcome highlights serious issues, such as fraud or academic misconduct, then the author's institution may be informed about the matter.

Journal of Psychological Perspective (JoPP) does not intend to target any individual as its goal is to ensure transparency. The readers may, instead, be referred to the concerned reports of the institutional investigation, but only if these are publicly made available. While the investigation is in progress, which usually takes time to conclude, an Editor's Notes and/or Editorial Expressions of Concern (EEoC) is published to notify the readers about the criticism received in respect of the published article as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editor's Notes and EEoCs are replaced by publishing a revision―such as a corrigendum or retraction―once a decision is finalized after a complete investigation.

An Editor's Note is a message for the readers if the journal has launched an investigation in case of concerns raised on the published content. It is just an online update and is not indexed.

An Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) is a declaration by the Editor notifying readers about any serious concerns shadowing the probity of the published article. EEOC's is linked to the published paper, assigned with a DOI, and are listed in scholarly databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, etc.


Plagiarism Policy

Papers submitted to Journal of Psychological Perspective will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Journal of Psychological Perspective will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to the Journal of Psychological Perspective must have a similarity level of less than 20%.

Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to properly judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:

  • An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
  • Substantial copying implies for an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledgment or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
  • Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.



The papers published in the Journal of Psychological Perspective (JOPP) will be consider to retract in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follow the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4


Posting Your Article Policy

Understand Journal of Psychological Perspective (JOPP)'s article sharing and posting policies for each stage of the article life cycle.

Prior to submission to JOPP
Authors may post their article anywhere at any time, including on preprint servers such as arXiv.org. This does not count as a prior publication.

Upon submission to JOPP
Authors may share or post their submitted version of the article (also known as the preprint) in the following ways:

  1. On the author’s personal website or their employer’s website
  2. On institutional or funder websites if required
  3. In the author’s own classroom use
  4. On Scholarly Collaboration Networks (SCNs) that are signatories to the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers’ Sharing Principles (https://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/)

The following text should be included on the first page of the submitted article when it first is posted in any of the above outlets: “This work has been submitted to the Journal of Psychological Perspective, , for possible publication".

Upon acceptance to JOPP
If an author previously posted their submitted version of the article in any of the following locations, he or she will need to replace the submitted version with the accepted version of JOPP. No other changes may be made to the accepted article.

  1. Author’s personal website
  2. Author’s employer’s website
  3. arXiv.org
  4. Funder’s repository*

Final published article

  1. When the article is published, the posted version should be updated with a full citation to the original of Journal of Psychological Perspective, including DOI. He or she will need to replace the accepted version with the published article version of JOPP.
  2. The article will be followed statements on the JOPP's copyright notice


Editorial Policies

  • Author Conflicts of Interest
    • Authors should err on the side of transparency, identifying any activities that might reasonably be perceived as a conflict, whether or not they believe that those activities actually influenced their research. Examples include, but are not limited to, consulting fees or grants from for-profit organizations, sitting on boards of for-profit organizations, or earning royalties for copyrighted measures. If editorial team members believe that authors might have an undisclosed conflict, they should discuss the potential conflict with authors and evaluate the need for disclosure. This policy is not meant to imply that individuals with potential conflicts are behaving unethically, but rather to encourage reporting of potential conflicts in the interest of promoting transparency.
  • Full Article Submissions by Members of a Journal’s Editorial team to that Journal
    • Any substantive submissions by action editors to their own journal should be managed by an external guest editor (selected by the Editor-in-Chief or by the APS publication committee if the author is the Editor-in-Chief) who is not a regular part of the editorial team and does not have any conflicts of interest.
  • Review of Editor Contributions
    • Any contribution by an editor that goes beyond a brief introduction or summary (e.g., a paragraph or two introducing a special section) should undergo peer review by a guest editor.
    • Any contributions that do not undergo peer review, however minimal (e.g., brief introduction or summary), should include a statement that it did not undergo peer review.
  • Identification of Action Editors
    • Articles should identify the action editor and Editor-in-Chief for each article (e.g., “John Doe served as Action Editor on this submission during Jane Doe’s term as Editor-in-Chief.“)
  • Self-Citations by Authors
    • Editorial team members should evaluate whether the extent of self-citation by authors is appropriate relative to that individual’s contributions to fields relevant to the focus of the article and citations to other relevant literature or authors. Editorial team members should recommend reductions in self-citations when they appear excessive or inappropriate scientifically.
  • Text Recycling/Self-Plagiarism
    • Authors can reuse text describing technical procedures or methods when those methods remain constant across studies. The COPE Editorial guidelines suggest that this form of reuse is reasonable, though citation of the previous work may be appropriate. However, authors should minimize text reuse (i.e., self-plagiarism) in other writing, though there may be some special circumstances in which some text-reuse is appropriate (e.g., invited article on a particular topic). Any text reuse outside of methods should cite the original work and should employ direct quotes and/or note that that the work excerpts from previous work with copyright permission (see also https://ori.hhs.gov/plagiarism-16a).

Note: Authors should feel free to contact the Editor-in-Chief or other editorial staff of a journal if they are uncertain about the relevance of any of these issues for their manuscript.


Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

Authors are requested to disclose interests that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication. Interests within the last 3 years of beginning the work (conducting the research and preparing the work for submission) should be reported. Interests outside the 3-year time frame must be disclosed if they could reasonably be perceived as influencing the submitted work. Disclosure of interests provides a complete and transparent process and helps readers form their own judgments of potential bias. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate.

Interests that should be considered and disclosed but are not limited to the following:

Funding: Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number) and/or research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending symposia, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through publication of this manuscript.

Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through publication of this manuscript. This includes multiple affiliations (if applicable).

Financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies (including holdings of spouse and/or children) that may gain or lose financially through publication of this manuscript; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication of this manuscript.

It is difficult to specify a threshold at which a financial interest becomes significant, any such figure is necessarily arbitrary, so one possible practical guideline is the following: "Any undeclared financial interest that could embarrass the author were it to become publicly known after the work was published."

Non-financial interests: In addition, authors are requested to disclose interests that go beyond financial interests that could impart bias on the work submitted for publication such as professional interests, personal relationships or personal beliefs (amongst others). Examples include, but are not limited to: position on editorial board, advisory board or board of directors or other types of management relationships; writing and/or consulting for educational purposes; expert witness; mentoring relations; and so forth.

Primary research articles require a disclosure statement. Review articles present an expert synthesis of evidence and may be treated as an authoritative work on a subject. Review articles, therefore, require a disclosure statement. Other article types such as editorials, book reviews, comments (amongst others) may, dependent on their content, require a disclosure statement. If you are unclear whether your article type requires a disclosure statement, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.

Please note that, in addition to the above requirements, funding information (given that funding is a potential conflict of interest (as mentioned above)) needs to be disclosed upon submission of the manuscript in the peer review system. This information will automatically be added to the Record of CrossMark, however, it is not added to the manuscript itself. Under ‘summary of requirements’ (see below) funding information should be included in the ‘Declarations’ section.

Summary of requirements

The above should be summarized in a statement and included on a title page that is separate from the manuscript with a section entitled “Declarations” when submitting a paper. Having all statements in one place allows for a consistent and unified review of the information by the Editor-in-Chief and/or peer reviewers and may speed up the handling of the paper. Declarations include Funding, Conflicts of interest/competing interests, Ethics approval, Consent, Data, Materials and/or Code availability and Authors’ contribution statements. Please use the title page for providing the statements.

Once and if the paper is accepted for publication, the production department will put the respective statements in a distinctly identified section clearly visible for readers.

Please see the various examples of wording below and revise/customize the sample statements according to your own needs.

When all authors have the same (or no) conflicts and/or funding it is sufficient to use one blanket statement.

Provide “Funding” as a heading (see template)  

  • Partial financial support was received from [...]  
  • The research leading to these results received funding from […] under Grant Agreement No[…]. 
  • This study was funded by […] 
  • This work was supported by […] (Grant numbers […] and […]


In case of no funding:  

  • The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work. 
  • No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. 
  • No funding was received for conducting this study. 
  • No funds, grants, or other support was received. 


Provide “Conflicts of interest/Competing interests” as a header (see template

  • Financial interests: Author A has received research support from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company Wand owns stock in Company X. Author C is a consultant to company Y. 

Non-financial interests: Author C is an unpaid member of committee Z. 

  • Financial interests: The authors declare they have no financial interests. 

Non-financial interests: Author A is on the board of directors of Y and receives no compensation as member of the board of directors. 

  • Financial interests: Author A received a speaking fee from Y for Z. Author B receives a salary from association X. X where s/he is the Executive Director. 

Non-financial interests: none. 

  • Financial interests: Author A and B declare they have no financial interests. Author C has received speaker and consultant honoraria from Company M and Company N. Dr. C has received speaker honorarium and research funding from Company M and Company O. Author D has received travel support from Company O. 

Non-financial interests: Author D has served on advisory boards for Company M, Company N and Company O. 

When authors have nothing to declare the following statement may be used:  

  • The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.  
  • The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.  
  • All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.  
  • The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.  

The authors are responsible for the correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript. See also Authorship Principles. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the guidelines described in this section.


SCOPUS Citation Analysis

Citedness with the various alternative title as searching keywords in SCOPUS:

Notes: A secondary document is a document that has been extracted from a Scopus document reference list but is not available directly in the Scopus database since it is not indexed by Scopus.