Xia & He Publishing

Content List

Policy and Statement	Ethics in Scientific Process
Article Types	Ethics in Publication
Before You Begin	Authorship
Manuscript Preparation	After Acceptance
Specific Instructions for Exploratory Journals	Article Processing Charge
Peer Review & Editorial Process	Contact Us
Download the Word Template

Policy and Statement: Open-Access
Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine (ERHM) adopts open access publishing model, and all articles are distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Under this license, anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse these articles for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is properly cited. Manuscripts submitted for publication in an open access journal are subject to the same rigorous peer-review and quality control as in scholarly subscription journals.

Copyright
Starting from 2017, the copyright on all published articles will be retained with the authors unless stated otherwise. Authors grant ERHM the sole, worldwide, and exclusive right to publish (i.e., print, publish, sell, and otherwise commercially exploit), reproduce, display, and store the published articles.

Permission
Articles published by all ERHM are distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial and otherwise in compliance with the license.
Permission to publish or advertise articles or portions of articles is granted on a case-by-case basis. For request of permission, please complete the Permission Request Form and submit it to [email protected].

Self-archiving Policy
Authors of articles published in ERHM are permitted to self-archive the preprint version of the article at any time, and may self-archive the postprint and published version without embargo.
Articles may be placed on:
1. The author's personal website;
2. The author's company/institutional repository or archive;
3. Non-for-profit subject-based preprint servers or repositories (preprints);
4. Non-for-profit subject-based repositories such as PubMed Central (postprints) and Research Gate;
5. Other suitable non-for-profit sites.

Preprint version
A preprint is the version of an article before peer-review. Authors are not requested to remove a preprint from a non-for-profit preprint server before submission. Upon acceptance, we recommend including an acknowledgement of acceptance on the first page, as follows:
“This is the pre-peer-reviewed version of the article which has been subsequently peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in [JOURNAL TITLE].”
After publication, the author may include the sentence:
“This is the pre-peer-reviewed version of the following article, which has been published online at [Link to final article using the DOI]: [FULL CITE].”

Postprint version
A postprint is the version of an article that has been peer-reviewed, revised, and accepted for publication, but prior to the final publication version which often includes copyediting, typesetting, and so forth. The following notice should be included on the first page:
“This is the peer-reviewed and pre-copyedited version of the article which has been accepted for publication in [JOURNAL TITLE].”
After publication, the author may include the sentence:
“This is the peer-reviewed and pre-copyedited version of the following article, which has been published online at [Link to final article using the DOI]: [FULL CITE]”

Published version
A published version is the article in formal format that is published online by the publisher. The version self-archived should include the full citation of the article on the first page.

Disclaimer Statement
All articles published in ERHM represent the views and opinions of their authors, and not the views, opinions, or policies of the journal or the publisher, except where explicitly indicated. ERHM shall not be held responsible for the use of views and opinions expressed in the articles; use of any information in the articles shall not be considered an endorsement by ERHM of the products advertised.

Privacy Policy
XHP is committed to the protection of your personal information. For details about the privacy policy, please visit: https://www.xiahepublishing.com/privacy-policy

Publisher
Xia & He Publishing Inc. Postal Address: 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, Texas, 77478, USA. Website: www.xiahepublishing.com; E-mail: [email protected].

Article Types

Please ensure that any manuscript you submit to ERHM conforms to the recommendations for ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), as well as the general article requirements. All submitted manuscripts will be checked using plagiarism detection software (Crossref Similarity Check). Below are the article types accepted for publication.

ERHM will consider the following article types for publication, with the following formatting restrictions. Table 1 summarizes the general manuscript guidelines for each article type.

Table 1. General formatting guidelines for each article type

Article Type	Abstract	Running title (~ 45 char.)	Figures & Tables	Manuscript *	References	Peer review	Article Process Charge
Original Article	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions; No more than 250 words		~ 8	~ 5000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 50
Review	Unstructured; No more than 300 words		~ 10	~ 10000 words; Structured as Introduction, main body, and Conclusions	~ 300
Mini-review	Unstructured; No more than 250 words		~ 2	~ 3000 words; Structured as Introduction, main body, and Conclusions	~ 70
Systematic Review	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions; No more than 250 words		~ 8	~ 5000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 70
Meta-analysis	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions; No more than 250 words		~ 8	~ 5000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 70
Scoping Review	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions; No more than 250 words		~ 8	~ 5000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 70
Short Communication	Unstructured; ; No more than 250 words		~ 4	~ 2500 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results and discussion (one section), and Conclusions	~ 30
Research Letter			~ 3	~ 1500 words; Unstructured	~ 15		50% discount
Letter to the Editor			~ 2	~ 800 words; Unstructured, begging with “Dear Editor(s),”	~ 10
Commentary & Editorial			~ 1	~ 1000 words; Unstructured	~ 10
Case Report	Unstructured; No more than 250 words		~ 4	~ 2000 words; Structured as Introduction, Case presentation, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 20
Case Series	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions; No more than 250 words		~ 8	~ 3000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions	~ 50
Opinion			~ 2	~ 1000 words; Unstructured	~ 20
Study Protocol	Structured with Background and objectives, Methods, and Discussion; No more than 250 words		~ 4	~ 4000 words; Structured as Introduction, Methods, and Discussion	~ 40
Hypothesis	Unstructured; No more than 250 words		~ 4	~ 4000 words; Structured as Introduction, Hypothesis, Evaluation of the hypothesis, Future directions, and Conclusions	~ 100

*Word count includes the main body of the manuscript (Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion), but excludes Abstract, Acknowledgement, Tables, Figure legends, References, etc.

Original Articles

Original research manuscripts should describe experimental and/or clinical studies in biomedicine, including exploratory and hypothesis-driven studies of basic or applied research. The data described in the article should have been generated exclusively from an original research study, and the results should be supported by appropriate statistical analyses. To enhance the quality and transparency of health research, the preparation of the manuscript should adhere to the appropriate reporting guidelines according to specific study types. Please find detailed information in the section "Study Reporting Guidelines".
Manuscript structure: (~ 5000 words, ~ 8 figures/tables, ~ 50 references) Title page, structured Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The Materials and Methods section needs to state which guideline has been applied, and the corresponding checklist should be submitted along with the manuscript. A structured Abstract with subheadings (Background and objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions) is required and must not exceed 250 words. It is recommended to include 6 to 12 keywords.

Reviews

Review manuscripts should describe the most recent advances or challenges in a specific field or specialty of biomedicine. The information should be presented as a logical summary of the current knowledge and should provide novel insights or hypotheses into the topic and reasoned recommendations for future research directions. Illustrations, diagrams, algorithms, tables, and other visual aids are strongly encouraged. A Methods section is not necessary unless the focus of the article is on methodology.
Manuscript structure: (~ 10000 words, ~ 10 figures/tables, ~ 300 references) Title page, unstructured Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Viewpoints (one-by-one), Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The Abstract is presented as a single paragraph with no subheadings and must not exceed 300 words. It is recommended to include 6 to 12 keywords.

Mini-reviews

(~ 3000 words, ~ 2 figures/tables, ~ 70 references) Mini-reviews are also accepted. Normally, a mini-review offers a succinct and clear summary of a topic, allowing readers to become up-to-date on new developments and/or emerging concepts, as well as discuss the following: differing thoughts or controversies; current research gaps; and potential future developments in the field.
Mini-reviews must not include unpublished material (unpublished/original data, submitted manuscripts, or personal communications) and may be rejected or reclassified, at a significant delay, if found to include such content. Mini-reviews follow the same structure as reviews.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

A systematic review paper, as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration, is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses explicit, systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. These reviews differ substantially from narrative-based reviews or synthesis articles, and must be based on the sound empirical basis of studies that were conducted scientifically well. In addition, the research question in terms of population, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study designs (PICOS) should be clearly defined. Statistical methods (meta-analyses) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. An article presenting a systematic review and meta-analysis will be categorized as an Original Article.
Reports of systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses should adhere to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and include a flow diagram. The completed PRISMA checklist should be submitted along with the manuscript. Please find detailed information in the section “Study Reporting Guidelines”.
Manuscript structure: (~ 5000 words, ~ 8 figures/tables, ~ 70 references) Title page, structured Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). A structured Abstract with subheadings (Background and objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions) is required which must not exceed 250 words, and it is recommended to include 6 to 12 keywords.

Scoping review adheres to the same manuscript structure as systematic review and follows the PRISMA checklist.

Short Communications

Short manuscripts documenting experimental results of high interest will be considered for publication in this category. Short manuscripts submitted for consideration are subject to the same rigorous peer review as other articles.
Manuscript structure: (~ 2500 words, ~ 4 figures/tables, ~ 30 references) The structure of a Short Communication is the same as that of an Original Article, but with an unstructured Abstract. The Results and Discussion should be included in a single section. The Abstract is presented as a single paragraph with no subheadings and must not exceed 250 words. It is recommended to include 6 to 12 keywords.

Research Letter

Research Letters documenting experimental results of high interest will be considered for publication in this category. Research Letters submitted for consideration are subject to the same rigorous peer-review process as other articles. It should not include abstract and section headings (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion).

Manuscript structure: (~ 1500 words, ~ 3 figures/tables, ~ 15 references) Title page, The text, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). It should not include abstract and section headings (e.g., Introduction, Methods, Results, Conclusion, and Discussion).

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor should describe timely issues related to a previous publication. These letters should use constructive and professional comments to expand upon any issue, providing novel and reasoned insights or updates on the topic under discussion. All opinions stated in the letter should be supported by the most current topically relevant literature.
Manuscript structure: (~ 800 words, ~ 2 figures/tables, ~ 10 references) Title page, The text, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The main manuscript should be addressed to the Editor(s). No accompanying abstract is required.

Commentaries and Editorials

Commentary and Editorial articles are normally submitted by invitation only, and should present reasoned opinions on a topically relevant issue that is currently trending in biomedicine. It is intended to motivate readers to consider seriously the topic and its potential for affecting the field or specialty.
Manuscript structure: (~ 1000 words, ~ 1 figure/table, ~ 10 references) Title page, The text, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). No accompanying abstract is required.

Case Reports

Case Reports should describe an individual patient or series of patients (normally less than three) that presented with an unexpected or rare condition that has a timely and significant influence on the field or in a specialty of biomedicine. These reports should provide novel insights into a pathological or physiological issue related to rare diseases, clinical findings, or novel/unique treatment outcomes, supported by well-described background information for both the case(s) (from documented medical records) and disease (from the literature). Written consent from the patient is required for publication.
Preparation of case reports should adhere to the Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline (CARE) checklist. Please find detailed information in “Study Reporting Guidelines”. The checklist should be submitted along with the manuscript.
Manuscript structure: (~ 2000 words, ~ 4 figures/tables, ~ 20 references) Title page, unstructured Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Case presentation, Discussion, Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The Abstract must not exceed 250 words.

Case Series

(~ 3000 words, ~ 8 figures/tables, ~ 50 references) Cases involving four or more patients will be published as a case series, adhering to the same structure as an original article. Preparation of a case series should adhere to the Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline (CARE) checklist. The checklist should be submitted along with the manuscript.

Opinions

Opinions are normally submitted by invitation only, but unsolicited articles will be considered. If you wish to enquire further about the suitability of your article, please email the editorial office at [email protected]. Opinions should include personal and original perspectives on an important research-related topic of interest to the general medical community, or interpretation of recent findings in any research area. The aim of opinions should be to stimulate debate or new research, discuss controversial topics, provide a new framework or interpretation of an old problem or current issue, the value of used methods, weaknesses and strengths of any scientific hypothesis, or to speculate on the implications of some recent research. Opinions must not contain unpublished or original data, must be supported by evidence, must be fully referenced, and must refrain from emotionally charged argumentation.
Manuscript structure: (~ 2000 words, ~ 2 figures/tables, ~ 20 references) Title page, Opinions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any).

Study Protocols

Publishing study protocols enables researchers and funding bodies to stay up-to-date. This helps prevent unnecessary duplication of work, enables collaboration, improves the standard of research, and assists in the development of biomedical hypotheses. Publishing study protocols in full also makes available more information than is currently required by trial registries and increases transparency, making it easier for others (editors, reviewers, and readers) to explore and understand any deviations from the protocol that occur during the progress of a study.

Study protocols should report proposed or ongoing research studies that have not completed participant recruitment at the time of submission, with a detailed account of the hypothesis, rationale, and methodology of the study. Study protocols for pilot or feasibility studies are also considered (but studies with original data should be submitted as a short communication or original article). Study protocols are generally not considered if other articles relating to the protocol have been published by the authors or are under consideration.

All study protocols for clinical trials must have been registered with a recognized clinical trial registry (i.e., have a trial registration number). Study protocols of randomized trials should follow the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items for Randomized Trials) recommendations and extensions, with the SPIRIT flow diagram and the populated checklist provided upon submission. Please find the details in “Study Reporting Guidelines”.
Manuscript structure: (~ 4000 words, ~ 4 figures/tables, ~ 40 references) Title page, structured Abstract (without results), Registration code, Keywords, Introduction, Methods, Discussion, Declarations (with Ethical Statement), References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The title should indicate that the manuscript is a study protocol (e.g., Randomized Controlled Trial on Drug A for Disease B: a Study Protocol). A structured Abstract with subheadings (Background and objectives, Methods, Conclusions) is required which must not exceed 250 words.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses should be clearly distinguished from review articles. A Hypothesis article is novel and may be radical or non-mainstream ideas but logically expressed, which usually contains a hypothesis and is followed by a section of evaluation. The hypothesis section should explicitly in detail state the core idea of the medical hypothesis, and/or how it is different from the current knowledge. In the evaluation section, the hypothesis should be scrutinized by rigorous literature review in which both supportive and unsupportive literature should be cited. Here, authors may also include limited preliminary research or empirical data to support the hypothesis if available. Before the conclusions, the significance of the hypothesis can be stated with potential implications for science if the hypothesis is confirmed. The future direction section should state how other researchers can apply or further test the hypothesis. Diagrams, algorithms, illustrations, tables, and other visual arts are strongly encouraged.
Manuscript structure: (~ 4000 words, ~ 4 figures/tables, ~ 100 references) Title page, unstructured Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Hypothesis, Evaluation of the Hypothesis, Future Directions, Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, Supplemental materials (if any). The title should indicate that the manuscript is a hypothesis. The Abstract is presented as a single paragraph with no subheadings and must not exceed 250 words.

Before You Begin: Ethics Consideration
Please read carefully our information pages on Ethics in Scientific Process and Ethics in Publication.

Data Repository Accession Numbers
Accession numbers should be provided for the repository of all sequences, plasmids, expression microarrays, and amino acid sequence data that is presented, regardless of whether it has already been or should be submitted in the future to GenBank or EMBL.

Abbreviations
In general, the use of non-standard abbreviations is discouraged. Abbreviations must be defined the first time they appear in the Abstract and the main body of the manuscript. Abbreviations will only be used if the abbreviated term appears 3 or more times in the Abstract and in the main body respectively, or for the acronyms of genes, or for terms that are known better by the abbreviation than the term.
Abbreviations in the figures and tables must be defined in the figure legend and table footnotes, regardless of how many times they appear. Standard abbreviations that do not require definition can be found in the AMA Manual of Style or the Index Medicus.

Nomenclature and Units
Nomenclature and units of measure should be used in accordance with the internationally accepted rules and conventions, including the International System of Units (SI). If other quantities are mentioned, the equivalent in is should be given. Authors who wish to present a list of nomenclature should place it on the second page of the manuscript.

Author Assurances/Declaration
Submission of an article implies that neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content has been published previously, or is currently under consideration for publication elsewhere, and that the manuscript contains no unlawful statements and does not contain any materials that violate any personal or proprietary rights of others.
The Publishing Agreement document must accompany all manuscripts submitted to ERHM. This agreement must be read and approved by every author. The Correspondence Author must certify that all listed authors participated significantly in the study, and that they have seen and approved the final manuscript.

Submission
Submission to the ERHM proceeds totally online and you will be guided stepwise through the creation and uploading of your files. The system automatically converts your files to a single PDF file, which is provided for your approval and will be used for the peer-review process. Please visit https://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/erhm to submit your manuscript.
All correspondence, including notification of the Editor's decision and request for revision, is by e-mail only.
It is highly recommended that all authors’ names and emails should be provided via the online submission system during initial submission.

Submissions from Editors, Editorial Board Members, or Employees
Submissions from editors, members of the editorial board, or employees will go through the same rigorous peer-review process as other submissions, and will be treated no differently to any other manuscripts submitted to the journal. To ensure unbiased review, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editorial Board Member, and the Editorial Staff will not make decision for, handle, or review his/her own manuscript. All possible measures are undertaken to avoid any potential conflict of interest in handling such manuscripts at all the stages including allocation of handling editor, selection of reviewers, decision making, and, if required, processing for publication. Moreover, the status of editorial board membership/employment should be declared in the conflict of interest statement of the published article.

Submission Checklist

1. The manuscript has been prepared according to the journal’s guidelines.

2. For manuscripts reporting studies involving animal subjects: ethical statements must be provided that approval was obtained from an institutional animal care committee and that all animals received humane care in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations.
3. For manuscripts reporting studies involving human subjects: ethical statements must be provided that identify the committee that approved the study, confirm that informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and that the protocols conformed to the ethical guidelines of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki.

4. Clinical trials must include the Clinical Trials Registry identifier number and platform.

5. Case reports and research articles including individual person’s data (e.g., photo/image/case history) should have a statement of consent for publication, and written consent can be provided for validation when requested.

6. For manuscripts prepared according to one of the EQUATOR research reporting guidelines, the relevant checklist should have been completed and will be submitted as supplemental material.

7. All authors have disclosed potential conflicts of interest, and a statement has been included in the manuscript.

8. Permission has been obtained for the re-use of copyrighted material from other sources; The authors confirm that the submitted manuscript does not violate any copyright agreement.

9. All authors confirm that there is no form of academic misconduct involved in the manuscript, e.g., plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate authorship; All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

10. The Figures and Tables are well designed and easy to understand. The original sources of data can be provided when requested.

11. The manuscript must be solely the work of the author(s) stated, must not have been previously published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal.

12. All authors approve the contents of the manuscript and this submission.

13. The authors ensure that manuscripts include the “must-have” section before the conclusions: Future Research Directions/Prospect/Prediction.

Journal collaborations

If a manuscript is declined by an XHP journal, it may be transferred to another XHP journal for consideration, upon approval from the authors, together with the previous review comments. Manuscripts transferred between XHP journals will not need to be reformatted.

Manuscript Preparation

Format-free Initial Submission

ERHM offers format-free initial submission to save researchers’ time and simplify the submission process. The journal’s format requirements do not need to be fully considered until the revision stage, provided that the following required sections are included in the initial submission: Title, Authors and Affiliations, Abstract and keywords, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, References, Figures, and Tables. Ethics statements should also be included. Additionally, the publishing agreement should be signed and uploaded with the manuscript. When submitting a revised manuscript after peer review, the journal’s format requirements must be met strictly.

Study Reporting Guidelines

To enhance the quality and transparency of health research, ERHM requires all investigators to prepare articles according to appropriate EQUATOR research reporting guidelines. Each submission of an original article/systematic review/meta-analysis/case report/study protocol should be accompanied by an appropriate checklist as listed below. Authors can find more guidelines at EQUATOR and should indicate upon submission which guideline has been followed. The main study types and reporting guidelines are:

a) Randomized Clinical Trials: CONSORT (download Checklist)

b) Observational Studies in Epidemiology: STROBE (download Checklist)

c) Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses: PRISMA (download Checklist)

d) Diagnostic/prognostic Studies: STARD (download Checklist)

e) Clinical Practice Guidelines: RIGHT (download Checklist)

f) Animal Pre-clinical Studies: ARRIVE (download Checklist)

g) Case Reports: CARE (download Checklist)

h) Study Protocols: SPIRIT (download Checklist)

Cover Letter

A cover letter should briefly outline the current knowledge in the research area, identify the key gaps addressed by the study, and highlight the novel contributions and conceptual advancements provided by the findings. The significance of the work to a broad audience should be emphasized. Authors may suggest up to three suitable reviewers and indicate individuals or groups to exclude in the cover letter.

General Style

All manuscripts should be submitted as a single Microsoft Word document that is typed in Times New Roman, font size 11, and double-spaced. Tables are also submitted as double-spaced.All manuscripts should be marked with successive line and page numbers to facilitate the peer-review process.

Title Page

Title

The title should be written as a brief but complete statement that accurately describes the content of the article. It is recommended that the title not exceed 120 characters, including spaces, and avoid non-standard abbreviations.

Short Title: The running title is advised to be no longer than 45 characters, including spaces.

Authors and Affiliation

All author names should be listed in the following order:

- First name (given name),

- Middle name (or initial, if used), and

- Last name (surname, family name)

The individual’s degree designation (i.e., PhD, MD, BS, etc.) should not be listed. Each author should list an associated department, university, or organizational affiliation and its location, including city, state/province (if applicable), and country. The affiliation should be denoted for each author using a numbering system that corresponds to that author’s position in the author list. Current addresses should be indicated separately and denoted by a symbol (but not an asterisk).

Corresponding Author

The contact information for the corresponding author should include the individual’s name, complete mailing address (department, institute, street and number, city, state/province, zip code, and country), e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number. The name of the Corresponding Author in the authors’ list should be denoted by an asterisk (*). In the case of co-corresponding authors (no more than 2 are allowed), the person responsible for addressing reviewers’ comments should be listed first.

Present/permanent Address

Superscript Arabic numerals are used for authors’ footnotes. The address at which the author did the work should be retained as the main affiliation address. The author’s present address (or permanent address) may be displayed as a footnote to the author’s name, if the author was visiting during the work described in the article, or has changed address since then.

Manuscript Structure

The sections of the manuscript text after the title page are as follows: Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Declarations (including Acknowledgments, Funding, Conflict of Interest, Authors’ Contributions, Ethical Statement [when involving any human subjects or animals], Data Sharing Statement [for research articles]), References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, and Supplemental materials (if any).
However, the sections vary among different article types. A case report contains an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Case Presentation, Discussion, Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, and Supplemental materials (if any). A review article consists of an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Viewpoints (one-by-one), Conclusions, Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, and Supplemental materials (if any). For more information on manuscript structure, please refer to the description of each article type.

i. Abstract

The Abstract must provide a complete but succinct summary of the study, its main objectives, results, key findings, and implications for the field or specialty. The Abstract of systematic reviews and all original articles should be structured with the following section headings: Background and objective(s), Methods, Results, and Conclusions. The Abstract of reviews and other non-original articles are unstructured and presented as a single paragraph with no subheadings. Acronyms and abbreviations must be defined the first time they appear in an Abstract. Abbreviations will only be used if the abbreviated term appears 3 or more times in the Abstract. Footnotes and references are not permitted.

Abstract Headings

Background and objective(s): The Background statement supports the importance of the study’s objective(s). The Objective states the question(s) addressed by the study, from which the study design was determined.

Methods: This section briefly describes the basic study design and techniques used to fulfill the objective(s) of the study.

Results: The Results section reports the main data obtained by the study, including statistical values (e.g., confidence intervals or P-values). The results of each experiment described in the Methods should be stated. The appropriate values and statistical differences will be reported so that readers can determine the absolute as well as the relative impact of the results.

Conclusions: The Conclusions section should state only the logical interpretations that can be drawn from the data that was reported in the Results, and how the study contributes to the knowledge of the research or medical community.

ii. Graphical Abstract

A graphical abstract is highly recommended. A well-designed graphical abstract usually draws more attention to the online article, which will be published online along with the full article and may be selected as the cover or back cover art of the issue. The graphical abstract should summarize the contents of the article in a concise and pictorial form. The graphical abstract should be submitted as a separate file in the online submission system. Image size: Please provide an image with a minimum of 531 × 1328 pixels (h × w), or more in the same proportion. The image should be readable at a size of 5 × 13 cm using a regular screen resolution of 96 dpi. Preferred file types: JPG, TIFF, or PDF for submission; an editable version, such as PSD, EPS, AI, Visio, WMF, EMF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OPJ, CDR, or PDF is preferred for the production process. No additional text, outline, or synopsis should be included. Any text or label must be part of the image file. Unnecessary white space or a heading “Graphical Abstract” should not be within the image file.

iii. Keywords

Immediately following the abstract, it is recommended to include 6 to 12 keywords selected from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) descriptor terms, which are listed in the National Library of Medicine's controlled vocabulary database. These terms can be searched using the MeSH browser at: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html. The keywords will be presented in the row-list style and written in lowercase, separated by semicolons. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.

iv. Main Text (Introduction/Methods/Results/Discussion)

The main body of a manuscript should be organized as follows: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion (including Conclusions) (IMRD), followed by Declarations, References, Tables, Figures Legends/Figures, and Supplemental materials (if any).

Introduction

The Introduction should focus on the rationale for conducting the study--why it was performed, and why the objectives were formulated as they were. The Introduction should succinctly convey the authors’ depth of understanding of the problem(s) addressed by the study, and the work of other investigators in this area. The objective(s) is then succinctly stated in the final paragraph. The statement of the objective is the most important sentence of the paper, since it determines all that follows it. A brief outline of the study design is optional, but sometimes highly recommended if the design is not immediately clear from the objective or to entice the reader to read further. The Introduction is not divided into subsections.

Materials and Methods

The Methods section should provide all the details that would be required for another investigator to repeat the work as it was performed by the authors. A beginning subsection “Study design” is highly recommended, which gives an overview of how the study satisfied the objectives of the study (as stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction). Subsequent subsections should be presented in the order in which the protocols were performed. It is highly recommended that each subsection begins with a sentence explaining the reason for the protocol, that is, how the protocol contributed to satisfying the objectives of the study. The steps taken for each protocol discussed in each subsection should be presented in the order in which they were performed. The results of an experiment should not be included in the Methods section, unless the results determine the direction of further experiments.

All experimental methods described in the Methods section must have accompanying data presented in the Results section or additional materials, and vice versa. Do not have a separate subsection for listing materials or equipment; but do list the materials and equipment within the protocols if they influenced the data. The complete names and locations (city, state/province and country) must be provided for the manufacturers of drugs, tools, instruments, software, reagents, and equipment.

Methods that have been published previously and used without significant alteration may be described briefly, with the appropriate reference. When significant changes have been made to a method, however, those changes should be described in detail, with citations as appropriate. By convention, the last subsection should discuss the detailed methods and software used to perform statistical analyses. No materials or methods should be presented outside of the

Methods section.

Results

The subsections of the Results should correspond to the subsections of the Methods, as much as practical. Reasons for performing an experiment or protocol may be summarized, but do not state or repeat the steps of an experimental procedure.

There should be data reported for each experiment described in the Methods section. The Results section should objectively present the data in a straightforward manner, noting the degree of significance in differences when appropriate. The Results section should not include interpretations of the data or conclusions, unless they redirected the investigation. Where data is presented in a table or figure, the data should be summarized in the text. Each table or figure should be referred to and in numerical order.

The Results section usually does not include any background information or discussion of results from previously published studies. Therefore, in general, no references are present in the Results.

Citing “data not shown” is discouraged; however, if unavoidable the term will be presented at the end of the sentence containing the description of the findings and written in parentheses as “…(data not shown)…”

Discussion

The data presented in the Results section, including figures, tables, and supplemental materials, should not be repeated in the Discussion section.

It is highly recommended that the Discussion section begin with a very brief summary (1-3 sentences) of the study’s objectives, the methods used to achieve the objectives, and the results. Repetitions of information that was already provided in the Introduction, or information in support of the study’s importance or objectives, are misplaced and discouraged.

The remaining paragraphs of the Discussion should focus on interpretations of the data of the study, with thoughtful comments on the novelty or unexpected features of the results, and references to relevant past studies.

The paragraph before the final summary and conclusions should discuss the limitations of the study. Limitations of the study are only those features that weakened the statistical power of the data, or prevented the full realization of the study’s objectives (as stated in the Introduction).

The conclusions section should briefly summarize conclusions that are directly supported by the evidence, and comment on the implications of the findings.

Special sections for exploratory journals

Apart from the standard sections for original articles (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion [IMRD]) or review articles, an additional section of “Future Research Directions/Prospect/Prediction” is REQUIRED by the Exploratory Journals. For more details, please refer to section “Specific Instructions for Exploratory Journals”.

v. Declarations

Acknowledgments

This section should acknowledge any and all personal assistance and providers of special reagents from sources that do not fulfill the requirements of authorship; individuals’ names and affiliations should be provided in full. The names of individuals who provided writing assistance (in full and with affiliations, if applicable) should be given in this section.

Funding

Grant support and other financial assistance to the study and the article should be specified. The full name of the funding agency should be given, with grant numbers (if available) provided in brackets, and the author to whom the grant was awarded (written as initials “to AZW”). Multiple grant numbers should be separated by commas. Agencies should be separated by semi-colons.

Example: Funding
The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01DK11xxxx to xxx).

Conflict of Interest

All authors must check the ICMJE’s unified disclosure form. Each author should check the form to disclose any potential conflict of interest and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the provided information. The ICMJE’s form could be downloaded here.

Examples: Conflict of Interest
1. The author is a consultant for and has received consultation fees from A**llas; however, this review is solely the author’s work without any connection with A**llas.
2. One of the authors, xx, has been an editorial board member of xxx journal since May 2021. The authors have no other conflict of interest to note.
3. The authors have no conflict of interest related to this publication.

Author Contributions

The Authors’ Contributions should be provided in paragraph form following the authors’ names and affiliations and corresponding author(s)’ information. The manner in which each author was involved with the study or preparation of the manuscript is listed with the author’s name (shown as initials, within parentheses). Contributions that are acceptable for inclusion as an author are: study design, performance of experiments, analysis and interpretation of data, manuscript writing, critical revision, statistical analysis, critical funding, administrative support, and technical or material support. For details regarding authorship requirements, please refer to the Authorship Criteria. There is no need to declare the author’s contribution for articles with only one author.

Example: Authors’ Contributions
Study concept and design (MJ, SS), acquisition of data (DS, CF), analysis and interpretation of data (DS, CF, MJ, SS), drafting of the manuscript (DS, CF), critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (MJ, MJT, SS), administrative, technical, or material support (SS), and study supervision (SS). All authors have made a significant contribution to this study and have approved the final manuscript.

Ethical Statement

All studies involving human subjects or animals should include a clear ethical statement. If a manuscript contains any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images or videos), consent for publication must be obtained from that person. For more details about ethics, please refer to “Ethics in Scientific Process”.

Data Sharing Statement

A Data Sharing Statement is required for research articles through which readers will know how to access the shared data. Sample wording: The [TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] data used to support the findings of this study have been deposited in the [NAME] repository ([DOI or other persistent identifier]); The [TYPE] data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article; The [TYPE] data used to support the findings of this study are included within the supplementary information file(s); The [TYPE] data used to support the findings of this study have not been made available because [the reason]; The [TYPE] data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author at [email address or URL] upon request; If no other data, please state: No additional data are available. Please find detailed information in “Data Sharing Policy”.

vi. References

References will be cited according to the rules recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and NLM. References are numbered consecutively in the order in which they first appear in the manuscript, by using superscripted Arabic numerals, for example, "Tam et al.3 reported that…".

Citations with multiple references (e.g., ^2,3,4,7,9) can be abbreviated as: ^2-4,7,9. The citation numbers should be placed after a comma and a period [e.g., ",^7-10"; ".²"], and before a colon and a semi-colon [e.g., "^7-10;"].

References should be relevant and correct. Authors should avoid citing retracted articles and replace them with other relevant current articles. If a retracted article does need to be cited, the reason should be explained in the manuscript, and the retracted status of the article should be noted in the reference list; the retraction note should also be cited in the manuscript, and the full reference of the retraction note should be listed in the references section.

Commonly used reference styles are listed below. The EndNote style template can be downloaded here.

Example reference styles:

1) Articles in journals List all authors up to six, and use "et al." When there are more than six authors, use the following format:
Article in print	Yi SG, Sadhu AR, Jones SL, Turner Krista, Monsour H, Donahue K, et al. The effect of adrenal replacement therapy on rates of fungal colonization and mortality in critically Ill patients awaiting liver transplantation. J Clin Transl Hepatol 2015;1(1):2-8. doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2013.00007, PMID: 26355432.
Issue with supplement	Kim WR. The burden of hepatitis C in the United States. Hepatology 2002;36(Suppl 1):S30–S34. doi: 10.1053/jhep.2002.36791, PMID: 12407574.
Issue with no volume	Ahrengart L, Tornkvist H, Fornander P, Thorngren KG, Pasanen L, Wahlstrom P, et al. A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;(401):209-222. PMID: 12151898.
Article published electronically ahead of the print version	Yang WJ, Wu YB, Chen L, Xu KK, Xie YF, Wang JJ. Two Chitin Biosynthesis Pathway Genes in Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae): Molecular Characteristics, Expression Patterns, and Roles in Larval-Pupal Transition. J Econ Entomol 2015;108(5):2433-2442. Epub 2015 Jul 1. doi: 10.1093/jee/tov186, PMID: 26453732.
2) Books and other monographs Smith BM. Basics of analytical chemistry and chemical equilibria. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013.
Organization as author	American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with eating disorders. 3rd edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2006.
Editor(s), compiler(s) as author	Dawson C, Whitfield HN, editors. ABC of urology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2006.
Author(s) and editor(s)	Breedlove GK, Schorfheide AM. Adolescent pregnancy. 2nd ed. Wieczorek RR, editor. White Plains (NY): March of Dimes Education Services; 2001.
Chapter/Article in a book	Shah J. Bladder outflow obstruction. In: Dawson C, Whitfield HN, editors. ABC of Urology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; 2006. p. 6-9.
E-book	Tissue BM. Basics of analytical chemistry and chemical equilibria [Internet]. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. [cited 2015 May 21]. Available from Wiley Online Library: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118647042
3) Conference proceedings Marle F, Jankovic M, Maurer M, Schmidt MD, Lindemann U, editors. Risk and change management in complex systems. Proceedings of the 16th International DSM Conference; 2014 Jul 2-4; Paris, France. Dutch: Elsevier; 2014.
4) Conference paper Ollmar S, Nicander I, Aberg I, Birgersson U. Evolution of a diagnostic decision support tool based on electrical impedance. In: Hermann Scharfetter, Robert Merwa, editors. 13th International Conference on Electrical Bioimpedance and the 8th Conference on Electrical Impedance Tomography; 2007 Aug 29-Sep 2; Graz, Austria. Berlin: Springer; 2007. p. 4-7.
5) Dissertation Grant, C. Grounded in your culture: the hidden key to promoting academic achievement among African American adolescent males [Dissertation]. Minneapolis: Capella University; 2010.
6) Patent Cheng, DY, Wiersma SJ, inventor; International Power Technology, Inc., assignee. Composite membrane for a membrane distillation system, United States Patent US 4419242. 1983 December 6.
7) Forthcoming (In Press) Material Lan T, Chang L, Wu L, Yuan YF. IL-6 plays a crucial role in HBV infection. J Clin Transl Hepatol Forthcoming 2015.

vii. Tables

All tables should provide concise but detailed information without the need to reference any portion of the text in the main body of the manuscript (or elsewhere). The information provided in the table should provide additional information that is not present in the text, to avoid redundancy.

The tables should be numbered according to their sequential presentation in the manuscript. Each of the tables should be on a separate page, starting immediately after the figure legends, or immediately after the Reference list if there are no figure legends. The tables should not be submitted as a separate file.

Tables require a label (e.g., “Table 2”) and a brief descriptive title above the table. Place legends, footnotes, and other text below the table. Indicate each footnote in the table with a superscript lowercase letter.

The table should be written using the Table function in Microsoft Word (not embedded Excel/.xlsx or image files). Tables should read vertically, if space allows, and have headings for each column prepared without the use of tabs. Abbreviations used in the table should be defined below the table in alphabetical order.

Table 2. Clinical features of the patients and healthy control group

Variables	Patients	Control	P-value
Body mass index, kg/m²
Systolic blood pressure, mmHg
Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg

viii. Figures

All figures must be referred to in the main body of the paper, most often in the Results section, and numbered in the order in which they are referred to in the text. Please refer to the Art Guideline for more detailed requirements.

Figure legends

Figure legends should be listed together on a separate page and located immediately after the Reference list. The figure legends should correspond to the figures. The figure legend should begin with a single unifying title that generally describes all the panels of the figure and data presented in the figure. The title should not appear in the figure itself.

Figure legends should interpret the figure for the readers, ensuring that readers understand what the authors need them to understand about the results. The figure legends should not repeat details given in the Methods, or details that should be stated in the Methods. The figure legend should not repeat the data values presented in the figure (including statistical values). The Figure Legend should not include any results or conclusions.

For inclusion of any copyrighted material, documentation that permission has been obtained for reproduction must be provided, and the source acknowledged in the legend. All symbols appearing in the Figure should be defined in the legend (such as asterisks and arrows). In addition, any color distinctions should be defined in the Figure Legend, unless a key has been added as an inset to the figure itself and provides the definitions. For micrographs, a scale bar within the figure is preferred over including the magnification in the legend. Abbreviations used in the figure should be defined in the legend.

Images

Publishing color figures in all Xia & He Publishing journals is free of charge. Images may be clinical, pathologic (gross or microscopic), endoscopic, or radiographic. Only images that are essential to justify the conclusions stated in the manuscript should be included. Figures can be submitted in JPG, TIFF, or PDF formats. The quality must be sufficient for peer review. For final publication, high-quality figures are required, along with a well-prepared and editable version, such as layered PSD, EPS, AI, Word, Excel, PPT, or PDF.

Composite figures may be submitted either as a single print-quality image, neatly labeled with lowercase letters (a, b, c…) in bold font in the upper left corner of the image; or as separate panels (without labels, e.g., Figure 1a.tif, Figure 1b.tif) corresponding to the description in the figure legend, which are combined during production if accepted for publication.

Photographs

All patient identifiers must be removed from photos and radiographic studies, unless specific written permission has been obtained from the patient.

Electron micrographs

Use scale markers in the image for electron micrographs, and indicate the type of stain used.

Line art and graphs

Lines or lettering should not be faint. Check that all lines and lettering within the figures are legible at final size. All lines should be at least 0.1 mm (0.3 pt) wide.

Gel electrophoresis labeling

The protein molecular weight or DNA marker sizes must be indicated on all appropriate figure panels.

Formatting Specifications

Figure files

It is the responsibility of the authors to submit publication-quality, high-resolution images. Do not include figure titles or captions within your figures. Please be aware that artificially enhancing the resolution of the image will result in a blurred image.

File Requirements

The list below is an abbreviated summary of the figure specifications.

File formats	For submission: TIFF, JPG, or PDF format, clear to review; For publication: TIFF files with high-quality, and the corresponding editable files in PSD, EPS, AI, PDF, or PPT format are required.
Color Mode	GRAYSCALE (black and white) or RGB (color)
Dimensions	Width: single column 8.6 cm; 2/3 double column 15 cm; double column 17.6 cm. Height: less than 21 cm
Resolution	Photographs and color images: 300 dpi. Gel electrophoresis, radiographs, CT scans, and grayscale images: 600 dpi. Line art (purely black and white figures with no shades of gray): 1200 dpi. Figures combined with graphs and line art: 500 dpi.
	Line art (purely black and white figures with no shades of gray) must have a resolution of at least 1200 dpi.
	Figures combined with graphs and line art must have a resolution of at least 500 dpi.
Text within figures	Arial, 8-12 pt
Captions	Do not include any title or captions on figures
File Size	10 M or less, save with Lempel–Ziv–Welch (LZW) compression

◎ Digital art files should be cropped to remove non-printing borders (such as unnecessary white or black space around an image, no more than 10% of the total area) and should not include embedded “legend” text, figure titles, or figure numbers.

◎ Figures that do not meet the above requirements may be returned when necessary.

◎ Note that source files of figures (such as PDF/AI/PS/EPS/PPT) may be required whether you embed your figures in the text or not, upon acceptance for publication.

ix. Supplemental Materials

Supplemental materials, including but not limited to documents, tables, figures, videos, and data, should be submitted together with the manuscript. For a manuscript prepared according to a reporting guideline, the corresponding checklist should be submitted as supplementary material. All documents submitted as supplemental documents will be published online only.

Specific Instructions for Exploratory Journals

The Definition of Exploratory Journals

It is believed that sharing exploratory and novel research results, as well as innovative and enlightened ideas or hypothesis on specific topics in form of official publication is very important, as this not only incites more extensive and fruitful research on these topics, but also engraves a historical hallmark in the journal. To this end, XHP established two journals focusing on exploratory research and hypothesis, namely Exploratory Journals, including Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine, and Journal of Exploratory Research in Pharmacology.

The Unique Character of Manuscripts Published in Exploratory Journals

Apart from the standard sections for original articles (Introduction, Methods and Materials, Results and Discussion [IMRD]) or review articles, an additional section of “Future Research Directions/ Prospect/ Prediction”, with or without “Hypothesis”, with no less than 100 words, is REQUIRED by the Exploratory Journals. However, although not required, a “Hypothesis” paragraph is highly preferred. This section is preferably accompanied by a graph that illustrates the exploratory research or hypothesis (e.g., proposed molecular mechanisms).

The proposed hypothesis or future research directions/prospect/prediction should be derived from the results of the study, although it may be preliminary, incomprehensive, or incomplete, with direct or indirect support from previous research findings in the literature. Thus, this section should shed new light on further basic and translational research, and may provide clues to approaches to clinical application. Some examples are provided below.

Examples 1:

Emma L. Beckett, Patrice R. Jones, Martin Veysey and Mark Lucock. Nutrigenetics—Personalized Nutrition in the Genetic Age. Explor Res Hypothesis Med. 2017; 2(4):109-116.

Future research predictions

The use of genotypic information in personalized nutrition offers considerable future promise, but significant barriers exist to successful implementation, independent of scientific knowledge. These include consumer acceptance, ethical, technological and regulatory considerations. Research into nutrigenetics has produced inconsistent results; however, the same could be said for conventional nutrition studies. This is not necessarily due to the overall quality of the research and the magnitude of the body of knowledge, rather it is due to the complexity interactions between nutrition, genetics, and long-term health. Improved frameworks are required to translate nutrigenetic studies into usable guidelines to direct practicing nutrition and medical professionals. This will require an interdisciplinary approach, including geneticists, bioinformaticians, nutritionists, dietitians and other biomedical professionals.

Furthermore, additional research is needed not only into the gene-nutrient interactions themselves but also into the public attitudes and acceptance on nutrigenetics and the associated risks and benefits of uptake. Without a holistic approach to implementation, it is unlikely that nutrigenetics will deliver on its early promise to improve health outcomes.

Examples 2:

Helen Barnett, Nathan M. D’Cunha, Ekavi N. Georgousopoulou, Jane Kellett, Duane D. Mellor, Andrew J. McKune et al. Effect of Folate Supplementation on Inflammatory Markers in Individuals Susceptible to Depression: A Systematic Review. Explor Res Hypothesis Med. 2017; 2(4):86-100.

Future research directions

It is hypothesized that consumption of FA may result in decreased neurotransmitter production due to decreased availability of biologically active folate 5-MTHF and a resulting decrease in SAMe. Moreover, the addition of FA into a finely balanced yet complicated cycle in susceptible individuals (e.g., those with MTHFR, MTR, MTRR and COMT polymorphisms) may serve to greatly slow the cycle via the inhibition of MTHFR by DHF. As the population continues to consume less folate from food sources such as leafy green vegetables, then it is postulated that the rates and severity of depression will increase as 5-MTHF decreases. Abbreviations: DHF, dihydrofolate; FA, folic acid; 5-MTHF, 5-methyltetrahydrofolate; MTHFR, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase; SAMe, S-adenosylmethionine.

Fig. 2 Relationship between folate, methylation and neurotransmitters involved with depression.

Examples 3:

Charlotte Martin, Zoe Yates, Martin Veysey, Katrina King, Suzanne Niblett and Mark Lucock. Vitamin D-related Nutrigenetics and Cognitive Decline in an Elderly Population. Explor Res Hypothesis Med. 2017; 2(4):131-138.

Future research directions

Further research is necessary to either confirm or refute the presently observed associations of VDR gene variants with cognitive decline as measured using the MMSE scale. By obtaining a more thorough understanding of VDR variants and their influence on risk of cognitive decline, new insights into the underlying pathophysiology of cognitive decline and development of possible intervention and treatment strategies will emerge. These may include the screening of particular VDR polymorphisms as part of a routine health check and the use of supplemental vitamin D at a younger age. Based on the preliminary results of this study, we hypothesize that the use of vitamin D as a potential preventative agent in cognitive decline will reduce the impact this degenerative disorder currently has on our health system.

Examples 4:

Azadeh Anbarlou, Mahshid Akhavan Rahnama, Amir Atashi and Masoud Soleimani. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors May Improve the Efficacy of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Transplantation. J Explor Res Pharmacol. 2016; 1(1):16-19.

Hypothesis

By increasing the amounts of serotonin in bone marrow, SSRIs may improve the efficacy of HSC transplantation (Fig. 1). Most studies concerning SSRIs have focused on the effects of sertraline and fluoxetine. Because the effects of fluoxetine on lymphocytes are variable under different conditions, we suggest sertraline, as its effect is solely immunosuppressive. The routine starting dosage of sertraline as an antidepressant is 50 mg/day, and the maximum is 200 mg/day,29,30 but higher doses are probably required for immunosuppression.19 The normal concentration of serotonin in plasma is 0.62±0.11 μg/L.31 Future studies must focus on the dosage of sertraline that will generate the optimum concentration of plasma serotonin for in vivo expansion of HSCs.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the hypothetical mechanisms underlying SSRI promotion of HSC transplantation through in vivo expansion of HSCs and decrease in GVHD.

Controversial or Negative Results

ERHM publishes original articles with controversial research or “negative” data that are generated from appropriate methods, and refute a proposed hypothesis or challenge a currently accepted hypothesis.

Examples for negative results

1. Takanashi S, Saif LJ, Hughes JH, Meulia T, Jung K, Scheuer KA, Wang Q. Failure of propagation of human norovirus in intestinal epithelial cells with microvilli grown in three-dimensional cultures. Arch Virol. 2014 Feb;159(2):257-66. doi: 10.1007/s00705-013-1806-4

2. Svanstrom H, Pasternak B, Hviid A. Use of azithromycin and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2013 May 2;368(18):1704-12. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300799

3. Whitehead KJ, Sautter NB, McWilliams JP, Chakinala MM, Merlo CA, Johnson MH, James M, Everett EM, Clancy MS, Faughnan ME, Oh SP,Olitsky SE, Pyeritz RE, Gossage JR. Effect of Topical Intranasal Therapy on Epistaxis Frequency in Patients with Hereditary Hemorrhagic Telangiectasia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016 Sep 6;316(9):943-51. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.11724

Example for controversial research:

Xia HH, Talley NJ, Kam EP, Young LJ, Hammer J, Horowitz M. Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with diabetes mellitus, nor with upper gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Apr;96(4):1039-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03604.x

Examples for refuting/challenging hypotheses:

1. Abbas AK. Protein Synthesis Inhibitors Did Not Interfere with Long-Term Depression Induced either Electrically in Juvenile Rats or Chemically in Middle-Aged Rats. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 12;11(8):e0161270. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161270

2. Xia HH, Talley NJ, Kam EP, Young LJ, Hammer J, Horowitz M. Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with diabetes mellitus, nor with upper gastrointestinal symptoms in diabetes mellitus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Apr;96(4):1039-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03604.x

3. Gunnarsson H, Arason A, Gillanders EM, Agnarsson BA, Johannesdottir G, Johannsson OT, Barkardottir RB. Evidence against PALB2 involvement in Icelandic breast cancer susceptibility. J Negat Results Biomed. 2008 Jul 17;7:5. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-7-5

Peer Review & Editorial Process

The objective of the peer review process is to ensure the integrity and transparency of the research objectives, data, and conclusions.

Editorial Process

All articles, solicited and unsolicited, that are submitted to ERHM will be subject to the following double blind peer review process, meaning that the author does not know the identity of the reviewer, and vice versa.

Step 1: Upon submission, the editorial staff will perform an initial assessment of the manuscript to determine its topical relevance, adherence to the formatting guidelines, and absence of plagiarism related to both textual and scientific content.

Step 2: If the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is forwarded to a triage editor with appropriate expertise in the subject area and/or study design. The triage editor conducts manuscript triage to recommend whether it should proceed to peer review or be rejected promptly. If immediate rejection is recommended, the recommendation is submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval.

Step 3: If the manuscript passes the triage screening, the triage editor will identify at least 2 external peer reviewers with expertise in the topic/specialty.

Step 4: After a peer reviewer has accepted the manuscript, 14 days (with a short grace period allowed for extenuating circumstances) is allotted for completion of the peer review evaluation.

Step 5: Upon return of the two peer reviews, the triage editor will make a reasoned recommendation for acceptance (full, with minor revisions, or with major revisions) or rejection and provide it to the Editor-in-Chief who makes the final decision.

Step 6: Manuscripts that are accepted with revision are allotted a 2-month period in which to return the revised version, which is to be accompanied by a Response Letter that clearly outlines the specific issues addressed in the manuscript. Papers that are returned without addressing every comment made by the reviewers and/or the editor will be rejected.

Step 7: Papers that required minor revisions will be re-assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, who will make the final decision for acceptance or rejection. Papers that required major revisions will be sent back to the original peer reviewers for further assessment and recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief who will make the final decision.

Step 8: If a paper is accepted, it will progress into the preparation stage for publication, the first step of which is copy editing and figure editing (if necessary) followed by typesetting.

Step 9: Proofs will be delivered to authors for confirmation.

Step 10: The articles will be published in PDF and HTML formats online in the next issue of the journal.

ERHM complies fully with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor's uniform requirements for manuscripts.

Author Appeals

Author may appeal an editorial decision by sending an email to the editorial office. The appeal must contain detailed reasons/responses or rebuttals to the review comments and the editorial comments. The appeal and related material and/or information will be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for judgement and for decision on the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief may recommend acceptance, revision, rejection, or referring to additional peer reviewers. The editorial decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed.

Ethics in Scientific Process

ERHM demands that all research described in its publications be conducted and reported in accordance with the guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and practices according to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Authors are expected to carry out their research-related activities in accordance with the tenets of honesty, transparency, objectivity, and accountability. Editors-in-chief, associate editors, editorial board members, reviewers, and editorial staff are requested to pay attention to prevent and eliminate author misconduct. ERHM reserves the right to reject any manuscript that editors believe does not uphold high ethical standards, even if authors have obtained ethical approval or if ethical approval is not required.

Ethics in Reporting Study Procedures and Findings

All methods used in a study should be adequately described, so that readers may replicate the experiments as they were performed by the authors. The practice of withholding a key step (including but not limited to a reagent, procedure, tool, or technique) or any other piece of information related to the study for proprietary or personal reasons is absolutely unacceptable.

Results are expected to be reported completely and accurately. All statistical results of an experiment and/or study project should be presented, including data that does not meet the threshold for statistical significance. The authors must not engage in data picking, which is the practice of presenting incomplete evidence from a series of experiments. The practice of selecting data to exclude negative findings is also prohibited and constitutes scientific misconduct.

All experimental controls should be reported. In addition, the weaknesses of the study design, which may have biased the results, should be reported.

Authors must ensure that all research records, including hand/typewritten documentation, films, and electronic files, are made available upon request at any time during the review process and in perpetuity after the publication of the article describing the study. Patient-related research records should meet the standard regulations of patient privacy and confidentiality. The refusal, disregard, or inability to provide research records that have been requested is considered evidence of scientific misconduct and should prompt an investigation into the need for an article’s dismissal from review or retraction from the journal; the decision to pursue additional actions to address the misconduct should be made at the discretion of the Editors-in-Chief.

Image Manipulation

All images accompanying a publication should be generated in accordance with general ethical standards to ensure the integrity of the data presented. Image manipulation or any other form of adjustment that modifies the data is prohibited.

Animal Subjects

Ethical conduct is expected for all procedures related to animal handling, including husbandry, care, and experimentation. For animal studies, it will be clearly stated that approval was obtained from an institutional animal care committee and that all animals received humane care in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations. For example, the US authors should declare the compliance with "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals" prepared by the National Academy of Sciences and published by the National Institutes of Health.

Example: Ethical statement for experiments involving animals

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the University of **** (Protocol Number: **-****). All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Human Subjects and Informed Consent

For a research study using human subjects, the type of study should be indicated from the following list: randomized controlled trial, cross-sectional study, cohort study, case series, or survey. In addition, the following should be stated: participating institutions; number of subjects; methods of subject selection, recruitment, enrollment, and randomization; and subject withdrawal and completion. Concerning interventions, the criteria for assignment, methods of administration, and duration should be described.

The authors should ensure that the planning, performance, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. All authors should seek approval to conduct research from an independent local, regional, or national review body (e.g., ethics committee, or institutional review board). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional, or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

The authors should provide declarative statements that: (a) written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to enrollment; and (b) the study protocol was approved by the appropriate institutional review committee (IRB), with the name of the committee and institution clearly stated; and (c) the study conformed to the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration. Information that may identify the human subject should be omitted or anonymized, unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. 、ERHM reserves the right to ask the author to provide signed informed consent, if necessary.

Examples: Ethical statement for experiments involving human subjects

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of [name of guidelines], [name of committee]. The protocol was approved by the [name of committee]. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study is registered at [URL]. The registration identification number is [identification number]. (Prospective study)

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of [name of guidelines], [name of committee]. The protocol was approved by the [name of committee]. The individual consent for this retrospective analysis was waived. (Retrospective study)

Clinical Trial Registry

XHP journals adopt the ICMJE’s trial registration policy. Briefly, we require registration of clinical trials in a public trials registry (such as ClinicalTrials.gov, or other Primary Registries listed here) at or before the time of first patient enrollment as a condition of consideration for publication. The ICMJE does not define the timing of first participant enrollment, but best practice dictates registration by the time of first participant consent. For all randomized controlled trials submitted for publication, the Clinical Trials Registry identifier number and platform should be provided. Observational studies (those in which the assignment of the medical intervention is not at the discretion of the investigator) do not require registration.

Consent for Publication

All case reports and research articles including individual person’s data must have obtained consent for publication. Since human patients are typically involved, case reports should first state that the study was carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of an ethics committee or institutional review board and with the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in 2013) ("Human Subjects and Informed Consent").
The authors should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions (e.g., between doctors and patients). Any submitted materials (photographs/videos, etc.) including personal details that may identify the participant should be omitted or anonymized, unless the information is essential for scientific purposes. Photographs need to be cropped sufficiently to prevent participants from being recognized, and the eyes must be masked to make the individual unrecognizable. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people (or from their parent/guardian) who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g., from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent only if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent, and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.

Example: Ethical statement for Case reports

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutions to which we are affiliated and with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report.

This study received ethical approval from the institutional review board of xxx Hospital and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and the accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the editorial office of this journal.

This single case report of [number of cases] clinical cases was a retrospective analysis of three or fewer clinical cases and is not considered as human research according to the U.S. federal policy [and institutional review board (IRB) regulations of xxx hospital]. An IRB approval was thus deemed unnecessary. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and the accompanying images.

Please note that consent to participate in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent for publication of personal information. To obtain consent for publication, authors can use the XHP consent form (download here) or an institutional consent form. The consent form must specify that the consent materials will be freely available on the internet and that all readers worldwide will be able to view them. Authors do not need to provide a copy of the consent form to the editorial office; however, the editor may ask the authors to provide a copy for verification at any time.

Proper Credit for All Individuals or Organizations

Authors are expected to give proper credit to all individuals and organizations involved in the performance of the research described in an article published by ERHM. Individuals who do not meet the Authorship Criteria but who aided in the research, such as patients and hospital staff, should be appropriately acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. Organizations that were contracted to perform work related to the research or that acted in a non-paid collaborative manner should be appropriately acknowledged in the manuscript. All funding agencies that provided support for the research or for any of the individuals involved in the research must be appropriately acknowledged in the manuscript.

Data Sharing Policy

It is the policy of XHP that authors of papers published in our journals make all data and related metadata underlying findings reported in their manuscripts available, either in a publicly available data repository, as supplementary information alongside the publication itself, or as direct provision upon request from readers.

To support this data sharing recommendation, a Data Sharing Statement is required for all research articles published by XHP journals. This Statement will specify the method(s) by which any reader may access the shared data, according to the following:

(1) For provision through a data repository: While there is no required repository, the authors should carefully select one according to field-specific standards, for example: GenBank for gene sequences; ArrayExpress for microarray data, etc. The Statement will include a functional hyperlink (full, and not a shortened version, such as Bitly) that takes the reader directly to the dataset for the manuscript, along with the repository(ies) name(s) and digital object identifiers (DOIs), accession numbers or codes, or other persistent identifiers for all relevant data.

Sample wording:
The [DATA TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] used in support of the findings of this study have been deposited in the [NAME] repository ([DOI or other persistent identifier]).

(2) For provision through Supplementary Information files: The authors will state that the complete data files were submitted along with the paper and are published as corresponding Supplementary Information accessible through the electronic publication.

Sample wording:
The [DATA TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] used in support of the findings of this study are included within the supplementary information file(s) accompanying this publication in the Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine.

(3) For provision upon direct request: The authors will state that the complete dataset is available upon direct request to a specified contact, which can be an individual (author or otherwise, as clearly expressed in the Statement) or professional group/agency. The precise contact information of that person or group/agency, usually an email address or URL, will be provided in the Statement.

Sample wording:
The [DATA TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] used in support of the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author at [email address or URL] upon request.

(4) For restriction of data sharing: If there is any restriction to the complete and free access to the data reported in a paper, the authors must provide a detailed and rational explanation of such.

Sample wording:
The [DATA TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] used in support of the findings of this study have not been made available because [the reason].

(5) No additional data: If all data related to the study are presented within the paper, and no additional (including raw) data exist, such will be specified in the Data Sharing Statement.

Sample wording:
The [DATA TYPE, such as technical appendix, statistical code, or dataset] used in support of the findings of this study are included within the article.

(6) For Data sharing of clinical trials: XHP journals adopt ICMJE’s data sharing statement policy, which is available at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html#two: A. As of 1 July 2018, manuscripts submitted to ICMJE journals that report the results of clinical trials must contain a data sharing statement as described below. B. Clinical trials that begin enrolling participants on or after 1 January 2019 must include a data sharing plan in the trial's registration. If the data sharing plan changes after registration, this should be reflected in the statement submitted, published with the manuscript, and updated in the registry record.

Please note: Data sharing statements for clinical trials must indicate the following:
1. Whether individual deidentified data will be shared;
2. What data will be shared;
3. Availability of related documents (study protocol, statistical analysis plan, etc.);
4. When the data will be available and for how long;
5. Criteria for obtaining the data.

If an original article reports results from a clinical trial involving any data that are not publicly available, the authors must provide a statement to answer the above questions. Illustrative examples of data sharing statements that would meet these requirements are provided at http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html#two.

(7) For data sharing of human involved research: For studies involving human subjects, data sharing should not compromise the privacy of the participants. It should be ensured that data are shared in accordance with the local laws as well as the participants’ consent.

Please note: If there is ethical or legal restriction to complete and free access to the data, the authors should provide the reason for the restriction in detail and provide the contact information to which requests for the data can be sent.

Ethics in Publication: ERHM has a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication and falsification. Cases of misconduct will be investigated and dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with the Editors-in-Chief being responsible for the final decision in all cases.

Types of Plagiarism
Plagiarism is defined by the ERHM as use of information, including textual descriptions, figures/tables and data, from a previously published document without proper citation or reference to the original source. All submitted manuscripts will be checked using plagiarism detection software (Crossref Similarity Check).

Textual Plagiarism
Textual plagiarism is the verbatim copy of a textual description of information that has been published, regardless of citation or reference. This includes text published in an article written by the authors themselves (known as self-plagiarism). To avoid this type of plagiarism, authors are strongly recommended to not use the copy-and-paste method for constructing the text of their manuscript or directly quoting text from other sources.

Duplicate/Redundant Publication
Duplicate/Redundant publication plagiarism involves the submission or publication of a study and/or its results and findings more than once. This type of plagiarism includes publishing a study and/or its results and findings in another language or with the information only slightly modified from another publication written by others or by the authors themselves (known as self-plagiarism). Duplicate/Redundant publication can result from simultaneous submission of an article; therefore, the journal requires that all authors of manuscripts submitted for consideration of publication provide written assurance that the submitted manuscript is not under consideration nor published elsewhere.

Fabrication
Fabrication is defined as faking raw data, figures, or any supporting files.

Falsification
Falsification, including image manipulation, is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processing/changing/omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

Policy on Misconduct
All instances of misconduct are considered intentional.
All authors who contributed to a manuscript with misconduct are considered responsible for the offensive action. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all of the authors (contributing as well as corresponding) to ensure prior to submission that no instances of misconduct, textual or data-related, are present in their manuscript.
If an author has strong suspicion or evidence of misconduct after the review process has been initiated, and before the publication process has begun or been completed, we strongly recommend that the author contact the editorial office immediately to withdraw the manuscript.
If the journal discovers misconduct during the review process, through a concern raised by a reviewer, editor, or the editorial staff, the editorial office will suspend the peer-review process and start an initial investigation, which usually will consist of obtaining a second opinion from another reviewer/editor. If the second opinion finds no supporting evidence for scientific misconduct, a statement and supporting evidence will be recorded, and the peer-review process will continue. If the second opinion finds supporting evidence for misconduct, a special Committee on Ethical Publication consisting of all editors-in-chief and 3 associate editors will review the data and request that the corresponding author be contacted in writing and asked to address the concerns within a short, but reasonable time. If the corresponding author responds on behalf of all the authors with explanations satisfactory to the Committee, the evidence will be summarized, the decision recorded, and the authors notified that the peer-review process will continue without prejudice. If the corresponding author does not respond or responds in a manner judged by the Committee to be unsatisfactory, the corresponding author’s institution, and in some situations, the appropriate regulatory body will be contacted, presented with the concerns and asked to conduct an independent investigation. If the authors are found not guilty of scientific misconduct, the peer-review process will continue without prejudice. If the author(s) are found guilty of scientific misconduct, the manuscript will be rejected immediately, and the author(s) may be banned from all journals published by Xia & He Publishing, Inc. for a determined period of time.
If scientific misconduct is detected after a manuscript has been published, for example, by a reader, the editorial office will refer the case to the Committee on Ethical Publication to investigate and contact the author(s) to request an explanation regarding the concerns. If the author(s) respond(s) with a satisfactory explanation, there will be no change to the published manuscript. A correction will be published in the case that an honest error has been detected that does not invalidate the conclusions. If the author(s)’ explanation is unsatisfactory, or the author(s) does(do) not respond, the editorial office will contact the corresponding author’s institution, and in some situations an appropriate regulatory body, to review the concerns. If the independent review confirms the Committee’s conclusion, a retraction or correction (if minor error and the majority of the results and conclusions of the manuscript remain valid) will be required to be published if there is sufficient evidence of misconduct, or if the authors admit misconduct. An expression of concern will be considered for publication if neither the authors nor the institutions provide a response or conclusive reply. The authors involved in confirmed scientific misconduct may be banned from all journals published by Xia & He Publishing, Inc. for a determined period of time.

Corrections
ERHM is very aware of our responsibility to correct errors in previously published articles. If there is sufficient evidence to prove an error in any published article, corrections must be made as soon as possible, in accordance with the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Errors include but are not limited to a research claim, the label of a figure or a table that does not alter conclusions, authorship, and so forth.
a) Corrections should be made immediately in the electronic version or printed page of the journal. The places that need to be corrected should be clearly indicated, with the correction date. The corrections should be included in the Table of Contents of either an electronic version or a print version of the journal.
b) The corrected version, and the version with errors, should be available for future access upon request from the authors.
c) The prior electronic version should contain a note that clearly indicates the existence of an updated version.
d) If the error is major enough to jeopardize the fundamental results or conclusions of the research, retraction instead of correction will be demanded.
The title of the submission should have the following format: "Corrigendum: Title of original article". It is advised to use the corrigendum Word templates.

Retractions and Expressions of Concern
ERHM acts in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in cases of potential retraction. We also abide by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:
a) Retractions are not about punishing authors.
b) Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.
Although all retractions are dealt with in a case-by-case matter, ERHM considers the following examples as sufficient cause for concern and potential retraction:
c) Sufficient evidence that findings are faulty or unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or academic error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error);
d) Findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper permission or justification (i.e., dual publication);
e) Legal or political issues pertaining to the content of the article are identified;
f) Major authorship issues have led to difficulty in determining the legitimate owners of the published work, i.e., proven or strongly suspected cases of ghostwriting or sold (‘gift’) authorship;

When scientific misconduct is alleged, or any concerns are raised about the conduct or integrity of published studies, appropriate procedures will be initiated as detailed by such committees as COPE. An expression of concern may be published pending the outcomes of these procedures. If any major flaw or academic misconduct is confirmed, the publisher reserves the right to retract the paper immediately. Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to, data falsification, fabrication, duplication, or plagiarism.
An expression of concern and retraction will be posted, in an electronic or printed version of the Table of Contents, to ensure proper indexing. The title of the original article will be included in the heading. The retracted paper also will be clearly labeled and linked with the retraction letter from both directions.
Readers who would like to draw the editors' attention to published work that might require retraction should contact the authors of the article and write to the journal, making sure to include copies of all correspondence with authors.
If an article requires retraction, the corresponding author(s) will be required to pay a fee of USD1000 to cover the costs of retracting the publication.

Authorship: Authorship Criteria
Authorship should be given upon meeting all 4 of the following criteria proposed (verbatim) by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; http://www.icmje.org/):

(1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

(2) Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND

(3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND

(4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

XHP implements the further following standards for authorship and related, durable responsibilities:

(1) All authors are responsible for identifying which co-authors take greater responsibility for specific parts of the work, such as statistical analyses, specific methods/tools for which they hold unique expertise, etc.

(2) All authors should have confidence in the integrity of their co-authors’ work, as they are accepting collective responsibility of such.

(3) All authors listed in the first submission of the manuscript should remain as authors throughout the peer-review and publication processes. If revisions of the manuscript, during the course of these processes, are modified to the extent that an original author no longer fits all 4 ICMJE criteria, the authors must provide XHP with a detailed, written explanation in a formal statement. This formal Authorship Change Agreement statement must be signed by all original and new authors, including the author(s) removed and/or added.

4) The specified Corresponding Author takes responsibility for monitoring and responding to all correspondence with the journal, in a timely manner, throughout the entire peer-review and publication process, from submission through post-publication (e.g., addressing related Letters to the Editor, etc.). These activities include the Corresponding Author ensuring that all of the journal’s administrative processes are addressed to completion, such as providing documentation related to ethics committee review/approval, patient/participant consent, clinical trial registration, etc. The Corresponding Author should carry out all of these activities while keeping in mind that their replies, such as to editorial/reviewer queries/critiques, can be made publicly available at the discretion of the journal after final publication.

Non-Author Contributors
All persons/agencies who contributed to the study or manuscript but who do not fulfill all 4 of the ICMJE authorship criteria should be acknowledged under the “Acknowledgments” section of the manuscript. These persons/agencies should provide written permission for their inclusion in the Acknowledgements section, and examples of such include anyone/group who contributed through funding, general supervision of a research group or general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, advising, supplying materials, critical review, and so forth.
ERHM does not accept the listing of any artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models (LLM) such as ChatGPT, as an author, because such tools cannot take any responsibility for the contents (text and/or figures) they have produced. Therefore, they do not fulfill the ICMJE criteria for authorship. Authors who make use of any AI tools must provide detailed information regarding such application of the tools in the Methods section and/or make a clear declaration in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. An author's intentional concealment of the use of AI tools will be treated as academic misconduct, and consequently, result in retraction of the article.

After Acceptance: Use of the Digital Object Identifier
The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) may be used to cite and link to electronic documents. The DOI consists of a unique alpha-numeric character string which is assigned to a document by the publisher upon the initial electronic publication. The assigned DOI never changes. Therefore, it is an ideal medium for citing a document, particularly articles in press, because they have not yet received their full bibliographic information. The correct format for citing a DOI is shown as follows: doi: 10.14218/JCTH.2016.00006. (This example was taken from a document in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology). When you use the DOI to create URL hyperlinks to documents on the web, they are guaranteed never to change.

Proofs
The PDF proof will be sent to the corresponding author by email, or a link will be provided in the e-mail so that authors can download the proof themselves. Please review the proof of your paper carefully, checking for any final typographical errors or minor necessary updates. We will do best to get your article published quickly and accurately. Please let us have all your corrections within 48 hours, in one communication. Please check carefully before replying, as inclusion of any subsequent corrections may not be guaranteed. Proofreading is solely the authors’ responsibility. Note that ERHM may proceed with the publication of your article if no response is received.

Reprints and Permissions
Article reprints are an exact replica of the article as it appears in the published journal, with cover included. High-quality copies of articles are available upon request to the publisher. Permission to publish or advertise articles or portions of articles are granted on a case-by-case basis upon user’s request. Visit: https://www.xiahepublishing.com/information/editorial/reprints

PDF Files
After publication, the corresponding author will be provided with a full-text link and/or a PDF file of the published article via e-mail. The PDF file can be downloaded at the provided link. Moreover, the full-content PDF (with cover) of the current issue is also downloadable from the Table of Contents page.

Article Processing Charge

ERHM adopts the open access publishing model. Open Access provides anyone in the world free and immediate online access to the scholarly literature to read, download, distribute, and reuse. To enable us to maintain a sustainable open access platform and thus serve as a conduit for communication among scholarly communities, authors pay an article processing charge (APC) for manuscripts that have undergone peer review and been accepted for publication.

There are no fees for submission, and no charges for articles that are rejected.

Journals	Article Processing Charge
Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine	USD 1260

Please note: APCs are currently waived for all submissions.

Contact Us: For any inquiries, please feel free to contact us at feedback; or email to [email protected]; [email protected].

Editorial Office

Executive Editor: Hua He
E-mail: [email protected]
Postal Address: 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, USA

Managing Editor: Shi-Bing Zhang
E-mail: [email protected]
Postal Address: Room 505, Building B1, Bio-innovation Park, No. 666 High-tech Road, East Lake High-tech Development Zone, Wuhan, China

Publisher

Xia & He Publishing Inc.
Website: www.xiahepublishing.com
Tel: +1-409-420-2868
E-mail: [email protected]

US Office
Address: 14090 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300, Sugar Land, Texas 77478, USA

China Office
Address: Room 505, Building B1, Bio-innovation Park, No. 666 High-tech Road, East Lake High-tech Development Zone, Wuhan, China

Updated Date: February 22, 2024

Journal Home	Online First Articles	Current Issue
Archive	Instruction for Authors	Instruction for Reviewers
Ethics and Policies	Editorial Board	Special Features
About the Journal	Indexing & Archiving	Submit Manuscript