Confidential Handling of Submissions

All manuscripts submitted to APCR are treated as confidential documents. Editorial staff and editors access submissions solely for the purpose of managing the peer review and publication process. Reviewers are invited under confidentiality expectations, and they must not disclose, share, or use the data, analysis, or ideas contained in the manuscript for any purpose other than peer review.

Access Control

• Manuscripts and accompanying files (figures, data, ethical approvals, reviewer comments) are accessible only to the handling editors, editorial staff, and invited reviewers.
• Editors must refrain from forwarding manuscripts to third parties without prior permission and must ensure reviewers are aware of confidentiality obligations. If a reviewer wishes to consult a colleague, they must request permission from the editor in advance and name the person consulted; that person is then bound by confidentiality.
• Unpublished research gleaned from submissions must not be cited, reported, or used to advance personal research without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Double-Blind Review Privacy

• Authors submit a blinded manuscript that removes names, affiliations, and self-identifying details. Editors will return files for correction if de-identification is incomplete.
• Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors or contact them directly. Any suspected identity should not influence the evaluation.
• Editor communications with authors and reviewers occur within the journal system to preserve a documented, confidential record.

Patient and Participant Privacy

Pathology and clinical research frequently involve sensitive personal data and images. APCR requires authors to ensure that any patient, participant, or donor information is protected and that publication occurs only with appropriate consent or lawful justification.

Identifiable Information

• Authors must obtain explicit informed consent for publication when individuals could reasonably be identified from text, images, audio, or video—even if names are removed.
• For clinical images (e.g., dermatological photographs, radiology scans, microscopy with distinctive features), authors must de-identify images and mask identifying details. Masking alone is not a substitute for consent when identification remains possible.
• Consent statements must be included in the manuscript, stating who obtained consent, the date, and the scope (e.g., journal publication, open access). Copies of consent may be requested for verification.

Special Populations

• For minors or those lacking capacity, consent must be provided by a legally authorized representative. If the individual gains capacity before publication, seek their consent when practicable.
• For deceased individuals, consult local regulations and institutional policies; permissions from next of kin or custodians may be required for identifiable materials.
• Case reports should avoid extraneous personal details that are not essential to clinical understanding.

Data Minimization and Security

• Submit only the minimum personal data necessary for scientific interpretation. Aggregate or anonymize whenever possible.
• Store any sensitive files securely during peer review and remove them from public supplementary materials unless essential and authorized.
• If a breach or inadvertent disclosure occurs during review or production, notify the editorial office immediately so mitigation steps can be taken.

Ethics Approvals and Oversight

All research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, tissues, or animals must include a clear ethics statement. Authors are responsible for ensuring oversight by appropriate committees and adherence to recognized standards for clinical and laboratory research.

• Provide the name of the approving institutional review board/ethics committee, approval number (or waiver determination), and the consent process used.
• For animal research, indicate the oversight body, housing and care standards, anesthesia/analgesia protocols, and endpoints.
• For biobanks, registries, or retrospective chart reviews, specify legal/ethical grounds for use (e.g., consent, waiver, anonymization) and data protection safeguards.
• Clinical trial registration and data monitoring plans should be disclosed when applicable.

Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests

Transparent disclosure of relationships or activities that could influence interpretation is essential. Authors must declare relevant financial, institutional, or personal relationships for all contributors; editors and reviewers must likewise disclose conflicts related to manuscripts they handle.

• Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts involving their collaborators, former students/mentors where a recent relationship exists, or competing commercial interests.
• Reviewers should decline invitations if they cannot provide an unbiased assessment or if they have direct competition, financial ties, or close personal relationships with the authors.
• Authors must detail funding sources and the role of funders in study design, data collection, analysis, and publication decisions.
• Undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication may result in corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

Use of Confidential Information Gained Through Review

Information obtained during editorial handling or peer review is privileged and must not be misused. Editors and reviewers must not exploit unpublished data, hypotheses, clinical images, or analytical methods for personal advantage or share them with colleagues without consent.

• Do not use insights from a manuscript to adjust ongoing research, grant applications, or presentations until the work is publicly available.
• Do not contact authors to seek collaboration based on confidential knowledge unless the editor mediates the outreach with author consent.
• Destroy or securely delete local copies of manuscripts and data after the review or appeals process is complete.

Image and Data Integrity

Integrity of visual and numerical data underpins scientific reliability. APCR screens submissions for inappropriate adjustments or manipulations and may request original files for verification.

• Only global, non-deceptive adjustments (e.g., uniform brightness/contrast) are permitted. Local enhancements that misrepresent findings are prohibited.
• Composite figures must be clearly labeled; splicing lanes in gels or juxtaposing micrographs from different fields requires demarcation lines and explicit explanation in legends.
• Numerical data should retain raw values and metadata. Provide details about statistical methods, software versions, and thresholds used.
• If integrity issues are suspected, editors may request raw data, audit trails, and instrument logs. Non-response may lead to rejection or post-publication action.

Responsible Sharing and Preprints

APCR supports responsible early dissemination via preprints and encourages data/code sharing that respects participant privacy and intellectual property.

• Preprints should be cited in cover letters and updated with the DOI upon publication. Deposited versions must clearly label their status (preprint, accepted manuscript, version of record).
• Data and code should be shared in stable repositories with persistent identifiers and clear licenses, subject to ethical and legal constraints.
• Patient-level data should be de-identified and shared under controlled access when full public release is not appropriate.

Responsible Use of AI and Computational Tools

Emerging computational tools, including generative models and image-processing software, can support research and writing but introduce privacy and integrity risks if used inappropriately.

• Do not upload confidential manuscripts, patient information, or proprietary data to public AI services during review or authorship unless an approved data processing agreement exists.
• Authors who use computational assistants for writing, translation, or figure generation must take full responsibility for accuracy and originality. Disclose such use in the manuscript’s methods or acknowledgments, and verify that no personal or sensitive data were exposed.
• AI-generated images must be labeled as such and must not be used to fabricate or simulate experimental results.
• Editors and reviewers must not rely solely on automated tools to make ethical or scientific judgments; human oversight is required.

Appeals, Complaints, and Corrections

APCR provides clear pathways for authors and readers to raise concerns and for the journal to correct the scholarly record as needed.

• Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a reasoned response and, where applicable, new evidence. Appeals are reviewed by an editor not involved in the original decision.
• Complaints: Concerns about editorial conduct, reviewer behavior, or process delays can be submitted to the managing editor for impartial investigation.
• Corrections and Retractions: Substantive errors, ethical breaches, or unreliable findings may lead to corrigenda, expressions of concern, or retractions. Notices remain linked to the original article to preserve the scholarly record.
• Author Name Changes: Requests for author name changes (e.g., due to personal or identity reasons) are handled discreetly and respectfully, with updated metadata and minimal disruption to discoverability.

Editorial and Reviewer Conduct

Editors and reviewers are expected to model the highest professional standards. Misconduct by editors or reviewers, including breaches of confidentiality, harassment, or discriminatory remarks, will be investigated and may result in removal from roles or reporting to affiliated institutions.

• Communicate respectfully and constructively; avoid ad hominem critiques.
• Complete reviews within agreed timelines or inform the editor promptly when delays arise.
• Base evaluations on evidence and methodology, not on assumptions about the authors or institutions.
• Declare expertise boundaries and recommend additional reviewers when needed to ensure comprehensive evaluation.

Data Protection and Legal Compliance

APCR handles author and reviewer information in accordance with applicable data protection principles. Personal data are collected for legitimate journal operations (submission, review, publication notifications) and are retained only as long as necessary for those purposes.

• Authors and reviewers may request access to or deletion of their personal information where appropriate and feasible, subject to record-keeping obligations.
• Email and platform communications may be archived for audit and quality assurance.
• Cross-border data transfers are limited to essential processing and safeguarded by standard contractual measures where required.

Practical Checklists

For Authors

• Include ethics approval and consent statements; specify waiver details when applicable.
• De-identify patient data and images; obtain explicit consent for identifiable materials.
• Disclose funding, roles of sponsors, and all competing interests for every author.
• Provide data availability statements with repository links and conditions of access.
• Retain raw data and original image files; be prepared to share upon request.

For Reviewers

• Do not disclose or use manuscript content outside the review process.
• Declare conflicts and decline reviews where impartiality is compromised.
• Focus on methods, results, and interpretation; provide actionable, courteous feedback.
• Report suspected ethical issues privately to the editor; do not investigate independently by contacting authors or third parties.

For Editors

• Ensure blinding and confidentiality are preserved across all communications.
• Vet reviewer suggestions for expertise, balance, and potential conflicts.
• Document decision rationales and maintain audit trails for appeals or complaints.
• Escalate potential misconduct for formal investigation when warranted.