Act with integrity

We expect our staff and all researchers engaging with Springer Nature to act with integrity. This means we uphold the principles of honesty, accountability, fairness, and compliance with legal and ethical standards and rule: honesty about who we are and what we are doing, accountability for our actions, fairness in our dealings with others and a demonstration of compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. We expect these same standards from staff and stakeholders. If we have reason to believe that these principles are not being honoured, we reserve the right to bring serious cases to the attention of employers or local authorities, if needed, and may refuse to interact, or do business, with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy. 

Manuscripts submitted by authors we find to be in breach of this policy will immediately be withdrawn. If we become aware of a breach of policy post publication we will investigate, and this may lead to post-publication action.

Appeals and complaints

Policy and process

These complaints procedures apply to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in the first instance be handled by the editor-in-chief(s) responsible for the journal and/or the editor who handled the paper. If the editor-in-chief is the subject of the complaint, please use our Speak Up system to raise your concern anonymously.

Complaint about scientific content, for example an appeal against rejection 

The editor-in-chief or handling editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether:

• the decision to reject should stand,
• another independent opinion is required,
• the appeal should be considered.

The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaint about processes, for example time taken to review 

The editor-in-chief together with the handling editor (where appropriate) and/or in-house contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The person making the complaint will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about publication ethics, such as researcher's, author's, or reviewer's conduct 

The editor-in-chief or handling editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The editor-in-chief or handling editor may ask the publisher via their in-house contact for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The editor-in-chief or handling editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, they can submit the complaint to the COPE. More information about publication ethics

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Springer Nature is monitoring developments in this area closely and will review and update these policies as appropriate.

AI authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently satisfy our authorship criteria. Notably, an attribution of authorship carries with it accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Use of an LLM should be properly documented in the Methods section (or if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM (or other AI tool) for “AI-assisted copy editing” purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, we define the term "AI assisted copy editing" as AI-assisted improvements to human-generated texts for readability and style, to ensure that the texts are free of errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone. These AI-assisted improvements may include wording and formatting changes to the texts, but do not include generative editorial work or autonomous content creation. In all cases, there must be human accountability for the final version of the text and agreement from the authors that the edits reflect their original work.

Generative AI images 

The fast-moving area of generative AI image-creation has resulted in novel legal, copyright and research integrity issues. As publishers, we strictly follow existing copyright law and best practices regarding publication ethics. While legal issues relating to AI-generated images and videos remain broadly unresolved, Springer Nature journals are unable to permit their use for publication.

Exceptions:

All exceptions must be labelled clearly as generated by AI within the image field.

• Images or art obtained from agencies with which we have contractual relationships, that have created images in a legally acceptable manner.
• Images and videos that are directly referenced in a piece that is specifically about AI -such cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• The use of generative AI tools developed with specific sets of underlying scientific data that can be attributed, checked and verified for accuracy, provided that ethics, copyright and terms-of-use restrictions are adhered to.

As we expect rapid developments in this field in the near future, we will review this policy regularly and adapt it if necessary.

NOTE: Examples of image types covered by this policy include: video and animation, including video stills; photography; illustration such as scientific diagrams, photo-illustrations and other collages, and editorial illustrations such as drawings, cartoons or other 2D or 3D visual representations. Not included in this policy are text-based and numerical display items, such as: tables, flow charts and other simple graphs that do not contain images. Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow a case-by-case review.

AI use by peer reviewers 

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, we ask that, while Springer Nature explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

Authorship

These guidelines describe the principles and best practices of authorship that prospective authors should follow.

Springer Nature assumes that:

• all authors agreed with the content 
• all gave explicit consent to submit 
• authors obtained consent from the responsible authorities at the institute or organisation(s) where the work was carried out, before the work was submitted.

The Publisher does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that warrant authorship. We recommend that authors follow the guidelines for authorship that are applicable in their specific research field. In the absence of specific guidelines, we recommend the following guidelines adapted from ICMJE and Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication, McNutt et al, PNAS February 27, 2018 

All authors whose names appear on the submission 

1. made significant contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work;
2. drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
3. approved the version to be published; and 
4. 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.

Discover journals encourage collaboration with colleagues in the locations where the research is conducted and expect their inclusion as co-authors when they fulfil all authorship criteria. Contributors who do not meet all criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Disclosures and declarations 

All authors are requested to include information about:

• sources of funding, or a declaration that no funding was received,
• any competing interests,
• availability of data, or a declaration that "No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study".

Authors may also need to include: 

• a statement on the availability of materials and code. 
• an ethics declaration, including: 
  • study-specific approval by the appropriate ethics committee for research involving humans and/or animals,  
  • informed consent if the research involved human participants,  
  • consent to publish from study participants,
  • a statement on welfare of animals if the research involved animals (as appropriate).

The decision whether such information should be included is dependent on both the scope of the journal and the scope of the article. It is the responsibility of all authors to include the appropriate disclosures and declarations, especially in cases where the work may have implications for public health or general welfare.

Dual publication 

Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. This practice, known as duplicate submission or dual publication, is considered unethical and can lead to serious consequences, and withdrawal of the manuscript.

Authors should wait for a final decision from one journal before submitting the same work elsewhere. If you wish to withdraw your manuscript from consideration, you must notify the journal in writing and receive confirmation before submitting it to another publication.

Data transparency 

We request all authors to ensure that all data, materials, software applications and custom code support their published claims and comply with field standards.

Role of the corresponding author 

One author is assigned as corresponding author and acts on behalf of all co-authors and ensures that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately addressed.

The corresponding author is responsible for the following requirements:

• ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission, including the names and order of authors;
• managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication*;
• providing transparency on re-use of material and mentioning any unpublished material (for example, manuscripts in press) included in the manuscript in a cover letter to the editor;
• making sure disclosures, declarations and transparency on data statements from all authors are included in the manuscript as appropriate.

*The requirement of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors during submission and proofing may be delegated to a contact or submitting author. In this case, please make sure the corresponding author is clearly indicated in the manuscript.

Author contributions 

Discover journals encourage transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility in all manuscripts, including review-type articles, that specifies the contribution of every author. The level of detail varies; some disciplines produce manuscripts that comprise discrete efforts readily articulated in detail, whereas other fields operate as group efforts at all stages. Author contribution statements are included in the published paper.

Discover journals also allow one set of co-authors to be specified as having contributed equally to the work and one set of co-authors to be specified as having jointly supervised the work. Other equal contributions are best described in author contribution statements.

Affiliation 

Each author’s primary affiliation should be the institution where most of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may additionally be stated. Addresses will not be updated or changed after publication of the article.

Changes to authorship 

Before submitting a manuscript, authors must confirm the correct author list, including the corresponding author and the order of names.

After submission, any changes such as adding, removing, or reordering authors require approval from all listed authors and the editor-in-chief.

After a manuscript is accepted, no changes to authorship are allowed. Author names will be published exactly as they appear in the accepted version, so please ensure all names are spelled correctly and that affiliations are accurate and up to date.

Changes to authorship during the revision stage are generally not allowed. However, in exceptional cases, they may be considered if a clear explanation is provided. Approval of such changes is at the discretion of the editor-in-chief.

Author name change 

An author who has changed their name for reasons such as gender transition or religious conversion may request for their name, pronouns and other relevant biographical information to be corrected on papers published before the change. The author can choose for this correction to happen silently, in which case there will be no note flagging the change on either the PDF or the HTML of the paper. Alternatively, they may make a formal Author Correction.

For authors who’ve changed their name and want to correct it on their published works, please refer to our Inclusive Name Change Policy.

Deceased or incapacitated authors 

If a co-author dies or is incapacitated during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the co-authors feel it is appropriate to include the author, co-authors should obtain approval from a (legal) representative, which could be a direct relative.

Confidentiality 

Authors should treat all communication with the journal as confidential. This includes correspondence with direct representatives from the journal such as editors-in-chief, handling editors, and reviewers’ reports, unless explicit consent has been received to share information.

Authorship issues or disputes 

In the case of an authorship dispute during peer review, after acceptance or after publication, the journal will not investigate or adjudicate. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute themselves. If they are unable, the journal reserves the right to withdraw a manuscript from the editorial process or, in case of a published paper, raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.

Availability of data, code and materials

Submission of a manuscript to a Discover journal implies that materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to anyone wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes, without breaching participant confidentiality.

For all journals, Discover strongly encourages that all datasets on which the paper’s conclusions rely should be available to readers. Where there is a community-established norm for data sharing, Discover expects data deposition (for data types with required deposition, see below).

Please see our Data repository guidance for more information.

Authors who need help understanding our data-sharing policies, finding a suitable data repository, or organising and sharing research data can access our Author Support portal for additional guidance.

Mandated data deposition based on community-established norms 

For certain data types (for example genomic data, nucleic acid or protein sequences), data deposition in a public-access repository upon submission is mandatory as there is a community-accepted standard of data deposition and data sharing.

Please consult this list of mandated data types and ensure that any relevant data are deposited in an appropriate repository and linked from your manuscript.

Publication of clinical datasets 

For datasets containing clinical data, authors have an ethical and legal responsibility to respect participants’ rights to privacy and to protect their identity.

Ideally, authors should gain informed consent for publication of the dataset from participants at the point of recruitment to the study or trial. Authors must state in their manuscript on submission whether informed consent was obtained for publication of patient data.

If informed consent was not obtained, authors must consider whether the dataset contains any direct or indirect identifiers (see here for more information). If there is any possibility that participants will not be fully anonymous, authors should consult their local ethics committee or another appropriate body before submission. If they choose to submit the data, authors must state the reason that informed consent was not obtained, and which body was consulted in the preparation of the dataset. Authors must demonstrate that publication of the data does not compromise anonymity or confidentiality or breach local data protection laws.

Software and code 

Any previously unreported software application or custom code described in the manuscript should be available for testing by editors and reviewers in a way that preserves their anonymity. The manuscript should include a Code Availability Statement describing how the editors and reviewers can access the unreported software application or custom code. This section should include a link to the most recent version of your software or code (on Zenodo or Code Ocean, for example) as well as a link to the archived version referenced in the manuscript. The software or code should be archived in an appropriate repository with a DOI or other unique identifier. For software in GitHub, we recommend using Zenodo.

Research materials 

Research materials include uniquely generated resources, such as strains, tools, chemical compounds, antibodies, cell-lines or mutant lines.

For biological materials such as mutant strains and cell lines, Discover encourages authors to use established public repositories where available and persistent identifiers and/or accession numbers of such resources should be listed in the manuscript. Any restrictions on availability of materials, including if materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, must be clearly stated in the paper.

Availability of data, code and materials statements 

All authors must include a data availability statement in their submission.

The data availability statement should detail where the data supporting the findings can be found. If your data cannot be shared openly, please explain this in your statement and specify the reason.

Discover encourages data availability statements for manuscripts reporting clinical trial data to follow the standards set out in the ICMJE recommendations on clinical trial data sharing.

For more information on how to draft a data availability statement and examples of published statements, visit Springer Nature’s guidance on data availability statements. 

Code and materials availability statements should be included where appropriate. Code availability statements should include information on what code is available, where these can be found, and any applicable access terms. 

For studies where new research materials have been generated, Discover encourages the following statement to be included in a materials availability statement:
“[Reagents / Tools / Materials] generated in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.”

Data citation 

Datasets that have been deposited in repositories should be included as formal citations in the article reference list. This includes datasets generated during the study as well as existing datasets analysed during the study. Citations of datasets should include the minimum information recommended by DataCite and follow our data citation guidance. 

Dataset identifiers including DOIs should be expressed as full URLs.  For example: Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A., Nakhjiri, N. & Farahmand, A. Global Integrated Drought Monitoring and Prediction System (GIDMaPS) Data sets. figshare http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.853801 (2014)

More information about writing data availability statements and data citation is available through the Springer Nature Research data policy page.

Third party data and analysis 

When a third party is used to generate or analyse part or all of the data presented in the study, this should be clearly stated within the Methods section and/or in the data availability statement. The corresponding author is responsible for all data presented within the published manuscript (for more information, refer to the roles and responsibilities of the corresponding author under “Authorship”). When data obtained from third parties cannot be made available, the restrictions should be clearly stated in the data availability statement. Authors must make data available for peer review, if requested by reviewers, within the terms of a data use agreement and if compliant with ethical and legal requirements.

Citations

Research articles and non-research articles (for example, Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive self-citation, coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite, gratuitous and unnecessary citation of articles published in the journal to which the paper has been submitted, and any other form of citation manipulation are inappropriate.

Citation manipulation will result in the article being rejected and may be reported to authors’ institutions. Similarly, any attempts by peer-reviewers or editors to encourage such practices should be reported by authors to the publisher.

Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:

• Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (sources other than the authors' own new ideas or findings or general knowledge) should use a citation.
• Authors should avoid citing derivations of original work. For example, they should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites an original work.
• Authors should ensure that citations are accurate; citations should support the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make.
• Authors should not cite sources that they have not read.
• Authors should not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.
• Authors should avoid citing work solely from one country.
• Authors should not use an excessive number of citations to support one point.
• Ideally, authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review where possible.
• Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.

Collections

Collections may include original primary Research Articles, Reviews, and other content types published by the journal.

All manuscripts submitted to Discover journal collections are assessed according to the journal’s standard editorial criteria and are subject to all of the standard Editorial Policies, including the Competing Interests policy. The content of the submission will also be assessed to ensure it lies within the scope of the collection.

All submissions that meet the journal’s criteria for peer review will undergo the journal’s standard peer review process. The peer review of any submissions for which the editors of the collection have competing interests is handled by another editor, who has no competing interests, to ensure the evaluation of these submissions is objective.

Communicate with respect

At Springer Nature, we believe that only through relationships based upon mutual respect can we build trust and deliver quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve. Our staff are always expected to behave professionally and respectfully when engaging with authors, reviewers and readers. Likewise, we expect the same standards of behaviour from the academic community and the public in their interactions with our staff. We do not tolerate aggressive behaviour, or any form of harassment, bullying or discrimination directed against Springer Nature staff. We reserve the right to bring serious cases to the attention of employers or local authorities, if needed, and may refuse to interact or do business with individuals who repeatedly or seriously violate this policy.

Competing interests

Discover requires authors to declare all competing interests relating to their work. This statement should describe all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests”. The editor may ask for further information relating to competing interests.

Editors and reviewers must also declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

What constitutes a competing interest?

Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by, or may be perceived to be influenced by, their personal or financial relationship with other people or organisations. These interests can also affect the handling and peer review of manuscripts. Authors should disclose any competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the manuscript.

Financial competing interests 

Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

• Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
• Holding stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the manuscript, either now or in the future.
• Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.
• Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

Non-financial competing interests 

Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests, including being an editorial board member or editor of a journal. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact us.

Commercial organisations 

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organisations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also follow the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies(GPP2022), which are designed to ensure that publications are produced responsibly and ethically. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organisations and communications companies. Discover will not publish advertorial content.

Editorial board members, guest editors and editors 

Editorial board members, guest editors and editors are required to declare any competing interests and may be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

In addition, they should exclude themselves from handling manuscripts in cases where there is a competing interest. This may include - but is not limited to - having previously published with one or more of the authors and sharing the same institution as one or more of the authors.

Where an editor, guest editor or editorial board member is on the author list, we require them to declare this competing interest in the peer review system so that we can ensure objective, robust peer review. If they are an author or have any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another editor, guest editor or member of the editorial board will be assigned to oversee peer review. These submissions are subject to the same review process as any other manuscript.

Editorial board members and guest editors are welcome to submit papers to the journal. These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts, and editorial board member or guest editor status has no bearing on editorial consideration.

Editorial staff 

All Springer Nature journal editorial staff are required to declare to their employer any interests - financial or otherwise - that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence. Springer Nature has a strict policy of editorial independence in individual acceptance decisions, and editorial standards of quality and significance should never be compromised. While some editors are financially incentivised to achieve journal growth, we are clear in our internal policies and individuals’ contracts or formal objectives that this should be achieved by ensuring submissions are of sufficient quality and never by compromising editorial standards.

Corrections, Retractions and Matters Arising

Rarely, it may be necessary to publish corrections to, or retractions of, articles published in journals, to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Corrections to, or retractions of, published articles will be made by publishing a Correction or a Retraction note bidirectionally linked to the original article. Any alterations to the original article will be described in the note. The original article remains in the public domain and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Authors, readers or organisations who become aware of errors or ethics issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the individual journal in the first instance using the contact details available on the journal website. All reports will be considered by the editors and additional expert advice may be sought when deciding on the most appropriate course of action. The Springer Nature Research Integrity Group provides support to editors in addressing publication ethics issues in a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)-compliant manner.

Corrections 

Errors in published articles that affect the accuracy of the article, but do not substantially invalidate the conclusion, will, at the editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected via publication of a Correction that is indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article.

For authors who’ve changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please use our SNCS Contact Form: Inclusive Name Change Policy: Springer Nature Support.

Retractions 

On rare occasions, when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary for published articles to be retracted. Editorial decisions to retract are based on the reliability of the article and whether the editor still has confidence in the interpretation of the work and/or conclusions being presented. Springer Nature will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases. Retractions are designed to be a neutral tool to correct the literature and should not be viewed as punitive. Retraction notices are indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article is watermarked as retracted, and the title is amended with the prefix “Retracted article:”

Editorial Expressions of Concern and Editor’s Notes 

Editor's Note 

An Editor's Note is a notification alerting readers that the journal has initiated an inquiry in response to concerns raised about a published article. It is an online-only update, made only to the HTML version of record of the published article. It is not indexed.

Editorial Expression of Concern 

An Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) is a statement from the editors alerting readers to serious concerns affecting the integrity of the published paper. EEoCs are published online and are bidirectionally linked to the published paper. They receive a DOI and are indexed in major scholarly databases such as PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. EEoCs may be an interim measure or may be final.

Publishing an Editor’s Note or EEoC is recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as a means of keeping readers updated while a potentially lengthy research integrity investigation is underway. Editor’s Notes and EEoCs are typically but not always superseded by publishing another amendment - such as a Correction or Retraction - once the investigation is complete.

Removal of published content 

In exceptional circumstances, Springer Nature reserves the right to remove an article, chapter, book or other content from Springer Nature’s online platforms. Such action may be taken when:

1. Springer Nature has been advised that content is defamatory, infringes a third party’s intellectual property right, right to privacy, or other legal right, or is otherwise unlawful;
2. a court or government order has been issued, or is likely to be issued, requiring removal of such content;
3. content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health. Removal may be temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (for example, title and authors) will be retained and will be accompanied by a statement explaining why the content has been removed.

Matters Arising 

Discover journals recognise the importance of post-publication commentary on published research as necessary to advancing scientific discourse. Formal post-publication commentary on published papers can include challenges, clarifications or, in some cases, replication of the published work. These comments should reflect the knowledge available at the time the original paper was written, rather than later scientific developments.

At the discretion of the editor, and dependent on the nature of the piece, post-publication comment or discussion will be evaluated, peer-reviewed and after peer review may be published online as Matters Arising. Authors of the original work will be invited to reply, and this may also be published alongside the post-publication commentary.

Digital image integrity

Digital image integrity

A certain degree of image processing is unavoidable for some experiments, fields and techniques. In all instances, the final image presented in the published article must accurately represent the original data and conform to community standards. Authors must exercise caution during data acquisition to avoid misrepresentation of the data collected. 

Editors may request the unprocessed data files to help in manuscript evaluation during the peer review process. If these data are unavailable upon request, we may need to halt the peer review process until the issues are satisfactorily resolved.   

We may also request unprocessed data when responding to post-publication issues that may arise with published papers. Lack of availability of unprocessed data can make resolution of post-publication issues challenging. We strongly recommend retaining unprocessed data and metadata files after publication, ideally archiving data permanently.   

Some journals may require submission of unprocessed original images of gels and blots to be submitted with the final accepted version. These unprocessed images are then published in the Supplementary Information.  

General image guidelines 

• Do not combine images taken at different times or locations unless clearly indicated as time-averaged or a time-lapse sequence. Clearly separate adjacent images with borders and label and describe each image in the figure legend. 
• Avoid using tools that deliberately alter images (for example: cloning, healing). 
• Apply adjustments (brightness, contrast, etc.) uniformly across the entire figure panel, including controls. Do not alter data visibility or selectively emphasise regions. 
• Be prepared to provide original, unprocessed or uncropped images upon request. In the event this is not possible, be prepared to present experimental replicates of the images presented.  

Image processing and acquisition tools 

• List all image acquisition tools and software used, including version numbers. 
• If custom code is used for processing, provide a full description and make it available in a community repository. 
• Fully document all image acquisition settings and processing steps in the Methods section. 

Electrophoretic gels and blots 

• Cropping is acceptable if it improves clarity, but mention this in the figure legend. Some journals may require the original, uncropped images in supplementary files. 
• Avoid comparing samples across different gels/blots. If necessary, note that the samples are from the same experiment and processed in parallel. 
• Use clear separations (for example, black lines) for cropped together non-adjacent lanes. Include loading controls on the same blot where possible. 
• Do not overexpose gels/blots to prevent loss of faint bands. If high contrast is needed, provide multiple exposures in the Supplementary Information. 
• All papers containing blots should provide uncropped images with the membrane edges clearly visible as a supplementary information file ready for peer review.  

Microscopy 

• Do not group cells from different fields in one image; use Supplementary Information to show additional fields. 
• Apply image adjustments uniformly. Any use of pseudo-colouring, threshold adjustments, or gamma changes must be disclosed in the figure legend. 
• Ensure all microscopy images are presented with scale bars and/or indicated magnification. Images from different groups shown side-by-side should be presented at the same magnification to allow accurate visual comparison. 
• Specify equipment details (for example, microscopes, cameras, lenses) and list key acquisition settings in the Methods section. Mention any processing software used and describe manipulations such as deconvolution, 3D reconstructions, or thresholding. 
• State the image resolution and any processing done to enhance it. 
• All colour scales must be defined and intensity levels must be provided in either the figure or its associated legend. 

These guidelines help ensure that images accurately represent your data, maintaining transparency and trust in your published research. 

Peer review

All research articles, and most other article types, published in Discover journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers.

Discover journals follow a single-anonymous peer review procedure, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.

Peer review policy 

All submissions to Discover journals are first reviewed for completeness and then sent to an editor who decides whether they are suitable for peer review. Editors consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliations are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not request authors to make any changes to place-names unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.

Discover journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication. We believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative reviewers.

AI use by peer reviewers 

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions, and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, we ask that, while Springer Nature explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

Peer reviewer selection 

Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, competing interests and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable.

Editor Responsibilities (from the Journal Editors’ Code of Conduct):

Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognised that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, editor(s) may wish to decide to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision, editor(s) are expected to ensure the peer review report meets the following standards.

• Peer review reports should be in English.
• They should provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work; particularly the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
• Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
• Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. These manuscripts should be assessed by the editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the editor(s). If the topic is not in area of expertise of the editor(s), these manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or editorial board member.

In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.

• The editor must have sufficient knowledge in the area, if acting as a second reviewer 
• The editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process 
• Single reports should be detailed and thorough 
• The first reviewer should be senior, on-topic and have published recently on the subject 

Potential peer reviewers should inform the editor of any possible competing interests before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Peer reviewer diversity 

Springer Nature is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, and we strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.

Peer reviewer misconduct 

Providing false or misleading information - for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers - will result in further investigation and possible notification to the reviewer’s institutions/employers. Discover journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Portable peer review 

To ensure an efficient publishing process and reduce the burden on peer reviewers, we aim to minimise the number of times a manuscript is re-reviewed after rejection from a Discover journal, thereby speeding up the publication process and reducing the burden on peer reviewers. In some instances, if a manuscript does not reach the interest criteria of a given Discover journal but is sound and in scope for another Discover journal, we may offer authors the option to transfer the manuscript together with the reviewer reports to the other journal.

Editors may share manuscripts with editors of other Discover journals before contacting authors to assess suitability for transfer to another journal. Transfer of a manuscript does not imply that it will be automatically accepted by the receiving journal. On some occasions, the editor of the receiving journal may need to conduct their own peer review and/or reject the manuscript if it is not suitable.

Plagiarism and duplicate publication

Springer Nature is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record.

Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour.

When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct, retract or otherwise amend the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study. Discover journals use Similarity Check, a service that uses software tools to screen submitted manuscripts for text overlap. 

Plagiarism 

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text or results. As defined by the Office of Research Integrity, plagiarism can include, "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work". Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others.

Authors must respect third parties’ rights, such as copyright and moral rights.

Duplicate publication 

Duplicate (or redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple journals to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper.

Text recycling 

Replication of text from an author’s own previous publications is text recycling (also referred to as self-plagiarism), and in some cases is considered unacceptable. Where overlap of text with authors’ own previous publications is necessary or unavoidable, duplication must always be reported transparently and be properly attributed and compliant with copyright requirements. If a manuscript contains text that has been published elsewhere, authors should notify the editor of this on submission.

Preprints and conference proceedings

Preprints 

Springer Nature journals encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on:

• preprint servers of the authors’ choice,
• authors’ or institutional websites,
• open communications between researchers, whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms.

Preprints are defined as an author’s version of a research manuscript before formal peer review at a journal, which is deposited on a public server (as described in Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352, 899–901; 2016). Preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardise consideration at Springer Nature journals.

Manuscripts posted on preprint servers will not be taken into account when determining the proposed advance or impact of a study under consideration at a Springer Nature journal.
Springer Nature has partnered with Research Square (Springer Nature has a majority interest in Research Square) to provide In Review, a journal-integrated solution for preprint sharing, supporting authors across all the communities we serve to share their research early. Authors submitting to some Springer Nature journals may publicly share information about their peer review through In Review. Find out more about In Review at Springer Nature and the Research Square preprint platform.

Our policy on posting, licensing, citation of preprints, and communications with the media about preprints of primary research manuscripts:

• Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at a Springer Nature journal. Once the preprint is published, the author must ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website.
• Authors may choose any license for the preprint, including Creative Commons licenses. The type of Creative Commons license chosen will affect how the preprint may be shared and reused.
• Preprints may be cited in the reference list of articles under consideration at Springer Nature journals, as follows:

Babichev, S. A., Ries, J. & Lvovsky, A. I. Quantum scissors: teleportation of single-mode optical states by means of a nonlocal single photon. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208066 (2002).

• Authors posting preprints are asked to respect the following guidance on communications with the media. Researchers may respond to requests from the media in response to a preprint or conference presentation by providing explanation or clarification of the work, or information about its context. In these circumstances, media coverage will not hinder editorial handling of the submission. Researchers should be aware, however, that such coverage may reduce or pre-empt coverage by other media at the time of publication. We also advise that researchers approached by reporters in response to a preprint make it clear that the paper has not yet undergone peer review, that the findings are provisional and that the conclusions may change.

Conference proceedings 

Publishing work in conference proceedings is common in some research communities. We are happy to consider submissions containing material that has been published in a conference proceedings paper. However, the submission should provide a substantial extension of results, methodology, analysis, conclusions and/or implications over the conference proceedings paper. The final decision on what constitutes a substantial extension is made by the editors at each individual journal. Authors must provide details of the conference proceedings paper with their submission, including relevant citation in the submitted manuscript. Authors must obtain all necessary permissions to re-use previously published material and attribute appropriately.

Research ethics

Complementary and alternative medicine standards for research 

Springer Nature journals are committed to evidence-based research. We believe that Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) research should be held to the same standards and evidence threshold as those of medicine research.

We welcome manuscripts for submission which meet the following clinical research standards:

• Clinical research manuscripts that comply with international and national standards for such work (the Declaration of Helsinki or relevant governmental regulation, such as the UK’s The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations).
  • Studies which are adequately controlled (be that compared to a placebo or conventional medicine), blinded (where appropriate), randomised and of sufficient statistical power to confidentially and accurately interpret the effect reported. Studies reporting a CAM treatment/technique compared only to another CAM treatment/technique are not sufficient to test the efficacy of the CAM treatment in question. Studies in which a conventional treatment is supplemented with a CAM technique are only valid if compared to the same conventional treatment supplemented with a placebo.
  • For CAM treatments/techniques tested on animal models and/or human patients: it is unethical for research on humans or animals to take place without adequate prior evidence that the treatment or technique shows potential of being therapeutic. Manuscripts must include evidence in the form of objective, measurable data from previously published peer-reviewed literature which follows scientific principles (for instance, in vitro or cellular work). Other forms of evidence are not valid. Manuscripts describing work lacking this evidence will not be considered, on ethical grounds.

Dual use research of concern 

Some manuscripts provide information that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat to public health, safety or security, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, or the environment. For such information to be published, the benefit to the research community, society, or to public health, must outweigh any risks. We reserve the right to take expert advice in cases where we believe that concerns may arise, and we may require a manuscript to undergo peer review specifically to assess the dual-use risk. Where the risk of misuse outweighs any potential benefit, publication is declined, and published content may be corrected, retracted or removed.

We expect researchers to comply with their institutional and funder’s requirements, as well as any national regulations. Researchers should be aware of dual-use concerns related to their work and take steps to minimise misuse of their research. Such concerns include, but are not limited to, biosecurity, nuclear and chemical threats. Where relevant regulations exist, authors should disclose whether their study is subject to consideration as dual-use research of concern. If it is, the manuscript should report the authority granting approval and the reference number for the regulatory approval. When the study reports material that can be harmful outside the laboratory context, the manuscript should describe appropriate containment (for example, biosafety) procedures.

We recognise the widespread view that openness in science helps to alert society to potential threats and to defend against them. We anticipate that the risks will only very rarely outweigh the benefits of publishing a paper that is otherwise suitable for publication 

Informed consent 

Consent to participate 

For all research involving human participants, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children). A statement confirming this must appear in the manuscript. For manuscripts reporting studies involving vulnerable groups (for example, unconscious patients) where there is the potential for coercion (for example, prisoners) or where consent may not have been fully informed, manuscripts will be considered at the editor’s discretion and may be referred to an internal editorial oversight group for further scrutiny.

Consent must be obtained for all forms of personally identifiable data, including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data. In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) from which organs/tissues were obtained. Documentary evidence of consent must be provided upon request.

Consent for publication 

For all manuscripts that include personally identifiable data, including biomedical, clinical, and biometric data, images, or videos relating to an individual person, written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from that person (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children). The consent must be for publication of their details under the relevant Creative Commons license (such that they will be freely available on the internet). If the person has died, consent for publication must be obtained from their next of kin. The manuscript must state that written informed consent for publication was obtained.

In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the editor.

Learn more about Third Party Rights for dissemination.

Research involving animals and their data or biological material 

The welfare of animals (vertebrates and higher invertebrates) used for research, education and testing must be respected. Authors should supply detailed information on the ethical treatment of their animals in their submission. Authors may use the ARRIVE guidelines, designed to be used when submitting manuscripts describing animal research. We recommend that authors consult the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (2020) as a comprehensive resource for guidance on veterinary best-practice for the anaesthesia and euthanasia of animals.

For studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Authors are recommended to comply with The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and consult the IUCN red list index of threatened species and Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

When reporting results, authors should indicate that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice where the studies were conducted. Please provide the name of the ethics committee and relevant permit number; and whether the legal requirements or guidelines in the country, state or province for the care and use of animals have been followed.

Researchers from countries without any legal requirements or guidelines should voluntarily refer to the following guidance:

• The Basel Declaration describes fundamental principles of using animals in biomedical research.
• The International Council for Laboratory Animal Science(ICLAS) provides ethical guidelines for researchers, editors and reviewers.
• The Association for the study of Animal Behaviour describes ethical guidelines for the treatment of animals in research and teaching.
• The International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics provide guidelines for authors on animal ethics and welfare.

Researchers may wish to consult the most recent (ethical) guidelines from relevant taxon-oriented professional societies.

If a study was granted exemption or did not require ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript.

Authors are responsible for the correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript. See also our Authorship policy. The editor-in-chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the guidelines described here, or if they feel the work does not reflect the moral or ethical stance of the journal.

Research involving human participants, their data or biological material 

Ethics approval 

Research involving human participants, human material, or human data, must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number (where appropriate) must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should be detailed in the manuscript, including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption. Further information and documentation to support the exemption should be provided to the editor on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, the editor may contact the ethics committee for further information.

Retrospective ethics approval 

If a study was not granted ethics committee approval before it began, retrospective approval cannot usually be obtained. As a result, the manuscript may not be considered for peer review. The decision to proceed to peer review is at the editor's discretion.

Ethics approval for retrospective studies 

Although retrospective studies are conducted on already-available data or biological material (for which formal consent may not be needed or is difficult to obtain) ethics approval may be required, dependent on the law and the national ethical guidelines of a country. Authors should check with their institution to make sure they comply with the specific requirements of their country.

Ethics approval for case reports 

Case reports require ethics approval. Most institutions will have specific policies on this subject. Authors should check with their institution to make sure they are complying with their institution’s requirements and seek ethics approval where needed. Authors should secure informed consent from the individual (or parent or guardian if the participant is a minor or incapable). Read more in the Research ethics section on Informed Consent.

Cell lines 

If human cells are used, authors must declare in the manuscript:

• what cell lines were used by describing the source of the cell line, including when and from where it was obtained,
• whether the cell line has recently been authenticated and by what method.

If cells were bought from a life science company, please state in the manuscript:

• name of company (that provided the cells),
• cell type,
• number of cell line,
• batch of cells.

We recommend that authors check the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) register for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines. This step will alert authors to possible problems with the cell line and may save considerable time and effort.

Authors should include a statement that confirms:

• that an institutional or independent ethics committee approved the study,
• the name of the ethics committee that approved the study,
• that informed consent was obtained from the donor or next of kin.

Research Resource Identifiers (RRID)

Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are persistent unique identifiers (similar to a DOI) for research resources. Springer Nature encourages authors to use RRIDs when reporting key biological resources (antibodies, cell lines, model organisms and tools) in their manuscripts.

Examples:

Organism: Filip1tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi RRID:MMRRC_055641-UCD 
Cell Line: RST307 cell line RRID:CVCL_C321 
Antibody: Luciferase antibody DSHB Cat# LUC-3, RRID:AB_2722109 
Plasmid: mRuby3 plasmid RRID:Addgene_104005 
Software: ImageJ Version 1.2.4 RRID:SCR_003070 

RRIDs are provided by the Resource Identification Portal. Many commonly used research resources already have designated RRIDs. The portal also provides authors with links so that they can quickly register a new resource and obtain an RRID.

Clinical Trial Registration 

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a clinical trial as "any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes". According to the WHO, “A health intervention is an act performed for, with or on behalf of a person or population whose purpose is to assess, improve, maintain, promote or modify health, functioning or health conditions.” A health-related outcome is generally defined as a change in the health of a person or population due to an intervention.

To ensure the integrity of the reporting of patient-centred trials, authors must register prospective clinical trials (phase II to IV trials) in suitable publicly available repositories. For example, www.clinicaltrials.gov or any of the primary registries that participate in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

The trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration should be included in the abstract.

Purely observational trials do not require registration.

Research involving human embryos, gametes, and stem cells 

Experiments involving the use of human embryos and gametes, human embryonic stem cells and related materials, and clinical applications of stem cells must be performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Manuscripts that report these experiments must include a statement to confirm that the guidelines and regulations were followed. (See also Research ethics section on Research involving human participants, their data or biological material).

The manuscript should include an ethics statement identifying the institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the name of the ethics committee) approving the experiments and describing any relevant details. Authors should confirm that informed consent for the study and consent to publish was obtained from all recipients and/or donors of cells or tissues, where necessary, and describe the conditions of donation of materials for research, such as human embryos or gametes. The journal may request copies of approval and redacted consent documents.

We encourage authors to follow the principles laid out in the ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation.

In deciding whether to publish papers describing modifications of the human germline, our journals are guided by safety considerations, compliance with applicable regulations, and the status of the societal debate on the implications of such modifications for future generations. If there are concerns about a particular type of study, the journal may seek advice from the Springer Nature Research Integrity Group.

The decision to publish a paper is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief of the journal.

Research involving palaeontological and geological material 

Details of palaeontological specimens and geological samples should include clear provenance information to ensure full transparency of the research.

It is recognised that precise provenance information may not be available for older museum collections. In circumstances where providing specific provenance information may compromise the security of palaeontological or geological sites, it may be appropriate to exclude detailed locality information.

Samples must always be collected and exported in a responsible manner and in accordance with applicable local and national laws. Any submission detailing new material should include information regarding the required permissions obtained and the issuing authority. Authors may be required to provide specific supporting documentation upon request.

Type, figured, and cited palaeontological specimens should be deposited in a recognised museum or collection to permit free access for other researchers in perpetuity. Provide sufficient information on the repository, including the assigned unique catalogue numbers (where applicable), to allow the specimens to be traced.

We encourage deposition of 3D scans of fossil specimens (where appropriate) within a permanent, accessible repository to support study by the scientific community.

Content submitted to Springer Nature must follow the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) normative instruments for the protection of cultural heritage and the Resolutions, Motions, guidance and other statements of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER Guidelines)

We encourage our authors to follow the ‘Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines’ and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should:

• use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully, to avoid confusing the terms 
• indicate clearly in titles and/or abstracts what sex(es) the study applies to.

Authors should also:

• Describe whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected;
• report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study;
• provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate;
• discuss respective results.

If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. We suggest that our authors consult the full SAGER guidelines before submission.

Definition of Sex and Gender 

“Sex” refers to biological differences between females and males, including chromosomes, sex organs, and endogenous hormonal profiles.

“Gender” refers to socially constructed and enacted roles and behaviours which occur in a historical and cultural context and vary across societies and over time.

Applications of the guidelines 

These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animal and cell lines.

Standards of reporting

Springer Nature advocates complete and transparent reporting of research. For biomedical and biological research, the checklists below must be completed before peer review and made available to the editors and reviewers.

Randomised controlled trials: CONSORT

Randomised controlled trial protocols: SPIRIT

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA

Case reports: CARE

Preclinical animal studies: ARRIVE

In addition, Springer Nature strongly encourages the use of the following checklists and reporting guidelines:

Observational studies: STROBE

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols: PRISMA-P

Diagnostic/prognostic studies: STARD and TRIPOD

Clinical practice guidelines: AGREE and RIGHT

Qualitative research: SRQR and COREQ

Quality improvement studies: SQUIRE

Economic evaluations: CHEERS

Use of plants, algae, fungi

Discover values stewardship, transparency, and adhering to governance with regards to collecting and utilising specimens and conducting experiments and/or field studies.

Field studies involving genetically engineered plants must follow national or local legislation. If applicable, the manuscript should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licences.

Authors utilising genetic plant resources received via local suppliers or collectors - such as species collected from protected areas or endangered species with medical importance - must conduct their experiments following the Nagoya Protocol (as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity).

Authors whose research focuses on quarantine organisms (harmful or pest organisms, including plant pathogens) should follow national legislation and notify the relevant National Plant Protection Organisation of new findings before publication. More information can be found through the International Plant Protection Convention.

In principle, we recommend that authors comply with:

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction and consult the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

Voucher specimens ensure that the identity of organisms studied in the field or in laboratory experiments can be verified, and ensure that new species concepts can be applied to past research. Voucher specimens documenting all investigated accessions (for population samples at least one specimen per population) should be deposited in a public herbarium, for example Index Herbariorum, or another public collection providing access to deposited material. Information on the voucher specimen and who identified it must be included in the manuscript, including genus name, species name, author, and year of publication.

Names of plants, algae and fungi 

Manuscripts containing new taxon names or other nomenclatural acts must follow the  International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Authors describing new fungal taxa should:

• register the names with a recognised repository, such as Mycobank 
• request a unique digital identifier 
• Include the unique digital identifier in the published article.