Editorial & Publishing Polices
Contents
Publishing Ethics Statement
Star Mountain Publishing is committed to upholding the highest standards of scholarly ethics, founded on unwavering academic integrity. We require all submissions to comply with our published policies, which are fully aligned with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles of publication ethics. All participants involved in the publishing process, including authors, editors and reviewers, are required to adhere to the guidelines and Core Practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Star Mountain Publishing adheres to COPE guidelines in addressing key ethical challenges, including conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, misconduct allegations, data integrity, plagiarism, and peer review reliability. We enforce a zero-tolerance policy toward ethical violations. When ethical concerns emerge, we conduct thorough investigations and take appropriate measures to safeguard literature integrity and protect research participants. Editors, authors, reviewers and readers may report any suspected ethical violations to the publisher. All complaints are investigated promptly according to COPE principles. Appropriate actions are taken to protect the integrity of published research and safeguard research participants. For any related inquiries or complainants, please contact the publisher at [邮箱].
Authorship
Star Mountain Publishing adheres to the authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Authorship should following the Authorship requires meeting all four criteria:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
- Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
- Final approval of the version to be published;
- 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.
All individuals listed as authors must fulfill all four authorship criteria. Individuals who have contributed to the work but do not meet all four authorship criteria are not eligible for authorship and should be acknowledged and listed in the manuscript's Acknowledgements section.
There is no universal definition of authorship, and practices vary significantly across disciplines and scholarly communities. These differences become particularly pronounced in interdisciplinary collaborations. For example, the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines are well known in biomedical fields, the APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines are used in psychology, and the EuChemS (European Chemical Society) guidelines are adopted in chemistry. In the arts, humanities and social sciences, publications by single authors are more common. However, the minimum recognized requirements for authorship are that authors must have made a substantial contribution to the research and be accountable for the work undertaken. (COPE Discussion document: authorship)
Role of the Corresponding Author
The Corresponding Author is assigned as the primary point of contact for all matters pertaining to the manuscript during the submission, peer-review, production, and post-publication process. The Corresponding Author acts on behalf of all co-authors and assumes primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of the scholarly communication process.
Corresponding Author Responsibilities:
- To act as the primary liaison for all correspondence with the journal and to keep all co-authors informed of the manuscript's status;
- To confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and consent to its submission.
- To ensure full compliance with all journal policies, including ethical standards, data transparency, and declarations of competing interests.
- To oversee all administrative tasks, from initial submission and response to peer review, through to proof approval and post-publication correspondence.
*A Contact Author may be designated to handle all correspondence throughout the editorial process. Therefore, the Corresponding Author must be clearly and correctly listed in the manuscript and retains ultimate responsibility for the academic content and the published work.
Authorship must be carefully considered and definitively established prior to manuscript submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring the complete and correct author list, order, and affiliations. Any change to authorship, including additions, deletions, or alterations to the sequence is treated with the utmost seriousness. Such requests require the unanimous, documented consent of all co-authors, including those to be added or removed.
Any request for changes to the author list, including additions, deletions, or alterations to the sequence will only be considered during the editorial process, before manuscript acceptance. To request an author change, the journal requires a completed Authorship Change Form(1).docx from the corresponding author, which must include the signatures of all authors and a detailed rationale for the change.
It is critical to note that changes are generally prohibited after manuscript acceptance. Any request after manuscript acceptance will result in publication delays and is permitted only at the Publisher's discretion. For published articles, any request to change the authorship list will be formally evaluated by the journal. Upon approval, a formal Correction notice will be issued to document the change.
The Publisher reserves the right to investigate and verify authorship contributions at any stage and to reject change requests that lack sufficient justification. Authors are strongly advised to verify the accuracy of all names and affiliations at submission, as these will be published exactly as they appear upon acceptance.
Authorship Disputes
Star Mountain Publishing follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in addressing authorship disputes that arise during processing or after publication. According to COPE, journals are not positioned to adjudicate contributions deserving of authorship.
To manage authorship disputes, editors should consult the guide "How to Spot Authorship Problems." When authors cannot resolve disagreements independently, the case should generally be submitted to the relevant academic institutions.
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Star Mountain Publishing acknowledges the profound impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) on scholarly publishing. In response to the opportunities and challenges presented by technologies (such as ChatGPT), Star Mountain Publishing follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement and establishes the following policy to ensure responsible and transparent use.
Authorship and AI
Consistent with COPE's position, AI and LLMs (e.g., ChatGPT) are not permitted to be listed as authors on manuscripts. AI tools cannot fulfill the core requirements for authorship, as they cannot assume responsibility for the submitted work. Being non-legal entities, they are unable to assert the presence or absence of conflicts of interest, nor can they manage copyright and license agreements.
Author Responsibilities and Transparency
The use of AI in manuscript preparation demands rigorous transparency and unwavering author accountability.
- Mandatory Declaration: Authors must disclose any use of GenAI or AI-assisted technologies in the cover letter at submission. This includes, but is not limited to, their use in generating text, data, images, study designs, or in data analysis and interpretation.
- Methods Disclosure: Authors must provide a clear description in the "Materials and Methods" section detailing how the AI tool was employed, specifying the tool's name, version, and its precise role in the research or writing process.
- Acknowledgement: Product details of the AI tool (e.g., name, version, provider) must be included in the "Acknowledgments" section.
Ultimate Accountability: Authors retain final and absolute responsibility for all submitted content, including any AI-generated material. This encompasses ensuring the work's originality, verifying its scientific validity, maintaining the integrity of the entire manuscript, and ensuring full compliance with all publication ethics policies concerning plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, and intellectual property.
*The use of GenAI tools for minor text refinement, such as correcting grammar, spelling, punctuation, or improving sentence structure, is exempt from mandatory declaration.
Peer Reviewers and AI
The integrity of peer review depends on confidentiality. Therefore, reviewers are prohibited from using GenAI tools to assess or generate the substantive content of their reviews.
- Uploading any portion of a manuscript, figures, tables, or related communications to an AI platform constitutes a serious breach of confidentiality.
- Reviewers are solely accountable for the intellectual judgments in their reports.
- Limited use of AI for polishing the language of a pre-written review report may be permissible but must be disclosed to the handling editor. Any violation of this policy will result in the immediate rejection of the review report.
Academic Editors and AI
Academic Editors, including Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Board Members, are entrusted with the final stewardship of the editorial process. Given this critical role, they must not use GenAI tools during manuscript evaluation or decision-making. The confidentiality of the entire process must be preserved; under no circumstances should any manuscript content or related communications be submitted to GenAI platforms.
Star Mountain Publishing reserves the right to inquire further about AI usage and will take all necessary editorial actions to uphold these principles.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors, editors, and peer reviewers are required to disclose any actual and potential interests that may relate to the objective presentation or peer review of the work.
As defined by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) : “A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.”
For Authors
According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authors should avoid agreements with study sponsors, both for-profit and non-profit, that restrict their access to the complete study data or compromise their independent ability to analyze, interpret, and publish the findings at their discretion.
Required disclosures include:
- Funding Sources: Complete declaration of all research funding sources；
- Financial Interests: Employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert testimony；
- Non-Financial Interests: Personal relationships, academic rivalries, professional competitions, and relevant intellectual beliefs；
- Editorial Affiliations: Current membership in the journal's editorial board；
-
Sponsor Involvement: Detailed description of sponsor participation in study conception, data acquisition, and analytical processes.
Note: If no potential perceived conflicts exist, the authors should:“Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
For Editors and Reviewers
Editors and reviewers must decline to participate in the peer review process when a potential conflict exists. Common reasons for recusal include:
- Working at the same institution as an author.
- Being a co-author on the manuscript.
- A financial or personal relationship with an author (e.g., family member, close personal friend).
- Recent collaboration (within the past 2-3 years) on a research project, publication, or grant with an author.
- Any other relationship that could impair objectivity.
Journal Responsibilities
Journals are responsible for managing conflicts of interest transparently:
- Clear Policies: Clearly explain what should be disclosed, including the period that these statements should cover.
- Publication of Disclosures: Publishing all author conflict of interest statements.
- Editorial Recusal: Ensuring editors withdraw from decisions where objectivity may be compromised.
- Public Transparency: Journals should consider publishing their editorial board's conflict of interests and updating them regularly.
Utilization of the ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form is recommended to ensure complete and standardized reporting. Failure to disclose relevant competing interests may result in manuscript rejection or post-publication sanctions following COPE guidelines.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) offers detailed guidance on managing conflicts and investigating cases of suspected non-disclosure.
Misconduct Policy
Plagiarism
Plagiarism constitutes the presentation of previously published work as original content without proper attribution. This includes the uncredited use of text, ideas, images, or data from any source, including an author's own prior publications. Plagiarism is strictly not acceptable in any submissions to Star Mountain Publishing.
Authors are expected to adhere to high ethical standards and submit only original, unpublished content. Following COPE guidelines, we require that "original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations," a condition that applies equally to an author's own work.
Submissions found to contain plagiarism will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is detected before publication, the manuscript will be rejected; if discovered after publication, it may be retracted.
To uphold publication ethics of Star Mountian Publishing, all manuscripts undergo comprehensive screening through Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate to detect textual overlap.
Duplicate or Redundant Publication
Duplicate publication occurs when an author submits the same or substantially overlapping work to multiple journals, Redundant publication (or called "salami slicing") refers to the fragmentation of a single research study into multiple papers without substantial new scholarly value. Duplicate or redundant publication is a violation of publishing ethics. Manuscripts suspected of or confirmed to involve duplicate or redundant publication will be rejected.
If a part of a manuscript has been published or will be published elsewhere, authors must inform the editors in a cover letter. Authors are also required to cite all relevant prior work and clearly demonstrate the original contributions of their current submission beyond existing literature. For submitted or published articles found to contain such issues, retraction procedures will be initiated in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript.
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article.
The following types of prior disclosure are generally not considered duplicate or redundant publication:
- Abstracts and posters presented at professional conferences
- Findings presented at scientific meetings
- Unanalyzed data deposited in databases or clinical trial registries
- Dissertations and theses archived in institutional repositories
Fabrication, Falsification, and Image Manipulation
Research integrity serves as the fundamental basis of scientific credibility. Data fabrication involves inventing data or research findings without any basis in actual experimentation, thereby introducing entirely fictitious information into the scholarly record. Data falsification refers to the deliberate manipulation of research processes through altering or omitting data, inappropriately modifying images, or selectively applying analytical methods to distort outcomes. Changes to images can create misleading results when research data are collected as images. Inappropriate image manipulation is one form of fabrication or falsification that journals can identify. It may, however, be legitimate and even necessary to edit images.
Star Mountain Publishing maintains rigorous standards for image presentation and data representation. Any form of data fabrication or falsification severely undermines the integrity of scientific literature. These practices constitute serious ethical violations that compromise research reliability. We explicitly prohibit certain manipulations including enhancing, obscuring, removing, or introducing specific features within an image; applying adjustments selectively to only part of an image; grouping images from different sources without clear demarcation; and reusing control images without explicit declaration.
Authors are encouraged to retain original, unprocessed data and images following publication. All image processing procedures require thorough documentation in the methods section, with relevant modifications clearly described in figure legends. Complete, unprocessed versions of essential images must be available for editorial review upon request.
Star Mountain Publishing strictly follows the guidelines of COPE. Manuscripts demonstrating evidence of misconduct will be rejected during peer review. For published works where violations are verified, immediate retraction procedures will be implemented.
Research Ethics
Research ethics refers to a framework of principles and standards that guide the conduct of scientific inquiry. Its purpose is to ensure the credibility and integrity of the research process, while respecting and safeguarding the well-being of all involved parties.
Research Involving Human Subjects
All research involving human participants must be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki. (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/). Adherence to these guidelines is mandatory for submission and publication.
All such studies must obtain prior approval from an appropriate institutional ethics committee and informed consent from every participant involved, including explicit consent for the publication of research outcomes. Unless formally waived by an ethics committee in accordance with specific local legislation, consent statement must be informed and documented in writing. The manuscript must clearly describe the process through which informed consent was obtained.
Protecting the privacy of research participants is paramount. To protect subject anonymity, identifying information must not be included in the manuscript unless it is absolutely necessary for scientific purposes and explicit approval has been granted by the subjects. In line with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, "Non-essential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained."
Authors are required to inform participants of the study's purpose, potential risks and benefits, and their unequivocal right to withhold or withdraw consent at any time. For minors, consent must be provided by a parent or legal guardian.
Upon submission, authors must:
- ldentify the approving ethics committee and provide the official approval identifier.
- Provide proof of ethics approval or a formal ethics statement.
- Submit a copy of the written approval as a confidential supplemental file if an approval identifier is unavailable.
This process will generate an ethics statement for inclusion in the manuscript, which must be formatted as follows:
"The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by [Full name and affiliation of ethics committee]. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study."
Finally, the manuscript must contain a statement affirming that the research was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and other applicable ethical standards.
Research Involving Animals
All scientific research involving animals must be conducted in strict accordance with national and institutional regulations. Adherence to high ethical standards and rigorous protocols is paramount to safeguarding animal welfare and ensuring the scientific validity of research.
Authors must ensure that their research adheres to the widely accepted “3Rs” principle:
Replacement: This entails using non-sentient materials (e.g., computer models, cell cultures) or lower-order species to replace conscious vertebrates wherever scientifically feasible.
Reduction: Authors must employ strategies to use the minimum number of animals necessary to obtain valid and significant results.
Refinement: Authors are required modify all stages of the study, from animal housing to experimental protocols. This must include the provision of species-appropriate environments and the application of appropriate anesthesia and analgesia to minimize animal pain, suffering, and distress.
Prior to commencement, research involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates generally requires review and approval by an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or an equivalent Ethics Committee. Manuscripts must include the project identification code, date of approval, and the name of the approving committee. If national legislation does not mandate ethical approval, a formal exemption statement from an ethics committee, along with a clear justification, must be provided. Journal editors reserve the right to conduct an independent ethical assessment of all submissions.
To ensure transparency, reproducibility, and quality in scientific reporting, authors must adhere to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Journals strongly encourage the submission of the ARRIVE checklist alongside the manuscript.
Specific Research Contexts
Client-Owned Animals: Studies must demonstrate best-practice veterinary care. Written informed consent must be obtained from the owner or legal representative, and a statement confirming this should be included in the manuscript.
Field Studies & Endangered Species: Research on free-living animals requires all appropriate licenses and permits, details of which must be provided in the manuscript. The use of endangered or threatened species (e.g., those listed by CITES or IUCN) requires compelling justification that the scientific benefit, such as a direct conservation application, substantially outweighs the potential harm.
Journal editors retain the ultimate right to reject any manuscript if the procedures are deemed to endanger animal welfare, if the animal cost is not justified by the scientific value, or if the research fails to align with widely accepted norms of animal care.
Copyright and License
Star Mountain Publishing are dedicated to the broad dissemination of scholarly work and to ensuring that authors receive appropriate credit for their contributions.
Authors retain copyright of their work published in Star Mountain Publishing journals. All articles are made available under the open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. This permits anyone to freely share (copy, redistribute) and adapt (remix, transform, build upon) the material for any purpose, including commercially, provided the original work is properly cited. This model is designed to maximize the visibility and impact of research. For any previously published material (e.g., figures, tables, text) included in a submission, authors are required to obtain permission prior to submission if they do not hold the copyright.
Research Data Policy
Star Mountain Publishing mandates data sharing to uphold the highest standards of research transparency, reproducibility, and to facilitate the reuse of scientific data. We require all authors to share the research data underlying their findings, including but not limited to raw data, processed data, code, software, algorithms, protocols, and study materials. We endorse the FAIR Guiding Principles, advocating for the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability of shared data.
Data Availability Statements
A Data Availability Statement is mandatory for all research articles submitted to the journal. This statement must be included in a dedicated section of the manuscript and clearly articulate:
- Whether the data supporting the study's findings are publicly available.
- If publicly available, the name of the repository (e.g., GenBank, PDB, Figshare, Zenodo), along with the persistent identifier, such as a DOI, URL, or accession number.
- If the data are not publicly available due to ethical, legal, privacy, or commercial restrictions, a detailed explanation for the restriction and the conditions under which the data can be accessed must be provided.
Manuscripts with incomplete or missing Data Availability Statements will not be considered for peer review.
Data Depositing and Archiving
We strongly recommend depositing data in a trusted, dedicated repository that ensures long-term preservation and provides a stable, citable identifier. All journals published by Star Mountain Publishing are assigned Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and registered with Crossref, a non-profit organization that provides DOI registration and metadata linking services to enhance the discoverability and accessibility of scholarly content.
Star Mountain Publishing upholds a joint commitment to the long-term integrity and accessibility of research data. In addition to depositing data in permanent repositories, authors are required to preserve the minimum dataset necessary to replicate their findings on their institutional or relevant departmental servers for at least five years following publication. Authors are also required to promptly inform the journal of any changes to the data's location or access conditions. Furthermore, we fully support self-archiving and permit authors to immediately post any version of their manuscript (submitted, accepted, or published) to personal websites or institutional repositories without embargo.
These policies are designed to facilitate scholarly collaboration and maximize the impact and citation potential of published research.
Data Citation Policies
To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, all authors are required to adhere to the following principles governing citation practices. Authors must provide appropriate attribution for all external sources, including their own previously published work. Direct quotations require both quotation marks and accurate citation. References should be limited to works the authors have personally examined and must faithfully represent the original source material. The citation of primary sources is strongly encouraged.
Authors must avoid the following forms of citation manipulation:
- Excessive self-citation that serves no essential scholarly purpose
- Preferential citation based on personal relationships or institutional affiliation
- Participation in citation cartels or coordinated citation schemes
- Compliance with coerced citation requests from editors or reviewers
- Gratuitous citation of publications from the target journal
- Referencing of promotional or advertorial content
Manuscripts exhibiting citation manipulation will be subject to rejection and may be reported to the authors' institutions. Authors are encouraged to report any inappropriate citation requests from editorial staff or reviewers. These guidelines align with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations on citation manipulation.
Updates Policy
Star Mountain Publishing is committed to maintaining the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record. Our post-publication updates are managed with transparency and fairness, in accordance with the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Author Identifiers and Affiliation Updates
To protect an author's privacy, we honor requests for name changes due to personal reasons, such as gender identity, marriage, or religious conversion. We will update the article and its metadata without publishing a Correction Notice or informing co-authors. A revised version of the article will be republished, and relevant indexing databases will be notified of the change.
Changes to author identity or affiliation that do not alter the scientific contribution may be considered. Such requests require formal justification and approval from the journal editor. Updates will be implemented without a formal correction notice where appropriate to maintain author privacy.
Corrections
To safeguard the integrity of the published record, corrections are issued when errors are identified. Based on the origin of the error, a Correction is published for significant issues attributable to the authors, whereas an Erratum is issued for errors introduced during the editorial or production process.
These corrections are further distinguished by severity. Minor corrections, which address inconsequential errors such as typographical mistakes, are handled by directly updating the Version of Record with a footnote; no separate notice is published. For major corrections that involve substantive errors affecting the interpretation of findings, the article is updated and a linked Correction Notice is published to detail the amendments. All relevant indexing databases are notified of the updates following either type of correction.
Retractions
Star Mountain Publishing follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for retraction.
“Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that have such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data can result from honest error, naive mistakes, or research or publication misconduct. The purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity, not to punish the authors.”
Grounds for Retraction
We will retract an article in the following circumstances, which include but are not limited to:
- Unreliable Findings: Clear evidence of irreparable major errors in data, analysis, or methodology that invalidate the central conclusions of the article.
- Research or Publication Misconduct: This includes data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, plagiarism, identity theft, fictitious authorship, or redundant publication without proper attribution, permission, or justification.
- Unethical Research Practices: Research conducted without required ethical approvals, or involving unethical practices.
- Process Integrity Issues: Compromised peer review processes, undisclosed major conflicts of interest that could bias the work, or evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication process (e.g., paper mills), which may necessitate batch retractions.
Upon the editorial team's decision to retract an article (a conclusion reached only after a thorough investigation in accordance with COPE guidelines), a clear and prominently visible Retraction Notice will be promptly published. This freely accessible notice will be permanently and bidirectionally linked to the original article, and must clearly identify the retracted work by its title and authors, state the reasons for retraction, and specify the party initiating the decision. The original article will remain publicly accessible to preserve the scholarly record but will be digitally watermarked and carry a clear retraction label.
Withdrawal
Authors may request to withdraw a manuscript prior to its formal acceptance and publication. The requirements vary depending on the stage of the editorial process:
Manuscripts Under Review: For submissions already under peer review, a formal request and a scientifically valid reason for withdrawal are required. A processing fee may be applied.
Accepted Manuscripts: Withdrawal of an accepted paper is a serious matter. It is typically editor-initiated and follows an investigation that reveals misconduct, significant error, or other ethical concerns prior to final publication.
Note: Article Processing Charges (APCs) will not be refunded for articles that are withdrawn or retracted due to academic misconduct or ethical violations.
Preprint Policy
A preprint is defined as the author's original version of a research manuscript that has not undergone peer review and has not been accepted for publication by a scholarly journal. Star Mountain Publishing supports and encourages the early dissemination of research through preprint servers. Authors may submit manuscripts that have been previously posted on non-commercial, community-recognized preprint servers (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, SSRN) prior to or concurrently with submission.
Requirements
Declaration upon Submission
Upon submission of the manuscript, authors are obligated to:
- Declare the existence of the preprint in the cover letter.
- Provide the name of the preprint server, along with the corresponding accession number or DOI, in the cover letter.
- If relevant to the research presented, ensure that the preprint is cited and appropriately discussed within the manuscript's reference list.
Post-submission and During Review
Authors may update their preprint on the server with newer versions that correspond to the version submitted to the journal. However, authors must not:
Post any versions that have been modified as a direct result of the peer-review process.
Post any versions that contain the journal's branding or logo.
Manually indicate on the preprint server that the manuscript has been accepted or is under review, unless this is an automated function of the server itself.
Post-Acceptance and Publication
Prohibition on Posting Final Versions
Upon acceptance for publication, authors are not permitted to replace the preprint with the final Typeset Version of Record (VOR) or the Accepted Manuscript (the author's final peer-reviewed version). The preprint must remain a distinct and non-peer-reviewed work.
Exclusions and Limitations
This policy applies only to Original Research Articles. Manuscripts that have been formally published in another peer-reviewed journal, book, or conference proceedings are not eligible for submission. Star Mountain Publishing reserves the right to reject a submission if the associated preprint has been the subject of widespread media coverage that could compromise the novelty of the work or the anonymity of the peer-review process.
