You are using an outdated browser. For a faster, safer browsing experience, upgrade for free today.

Loading...

Policies

1. Author Responsibilities and Ethics

1.1.1 Authorship definition

The journal recognizes authorship as a reflection of substantial scholarly contribution and shared responsibility. Individuals listed as authors must meet all of the following conditions:

  • Made a significant input to at least one of the core stages of the research, such as formulating the study’s aims, designing the methodology, collecting materials or data, conducting analyses, or interpreting findings.
  • Took part in drafting sections of the manuscript or in reviewing and refining the text to ensure its scholarly rigor and intellectual depth.
  • Reviewed the complete manuscript and explicitly approved its submission or final publication.
  • Accepted shared accountability for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of the published work, and agreed to address any issues that may arise after publication in a transparent and timely manner.

All authors are expected to have engaged actively throughout the research and publication process, and to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity.
1.1.2 Acknowledgment of non-authors
Individuals who have contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. This may include those who provided technical assistance, general supervision, funding acquisition, or other support. All individuals mentioned must have given their consent to be acknowledged.
1.1.3 Responsibilities of corresponding author
  • Primary contact with the journal editorial office for the manuscript.
  • Ensures all authors’ information (names, affiliations, emails) and order is accurate.
  • Handles the submission of the manuscript and any required forms
  • Acts as the point of contact for queries from the journal, including editorial decisions, reviewer comments, and requests for revisions.
1.1.4 Deceased or incapacitated authors
If an author becomes deceased or incapacitated before the manuscript is submitted or published, their contribution should still be recognized. The corresponding author must ensure that any statements attributed to the deceased or incapacitated author are accurate, and, where necessary, obtain consent from the author’s legal representative or institution.
1.1.5 Author affiliation
Each author should list the institution where most of their work was conducted as their primary affiliation. If an author has changed institutions since completing the research, a current address may also be included as an additional note. Affiliations provided at the time of submission will remain unchanged after the article is published.
1.1.6 Author identification
The journal encourages all authors to register for and provide an ORCID iD to ensure unambiguous identification. ORCID identifiers help link authors to their scholarly output and ensure proper attribution of contributions.
1.1.7 Author contribution （CRediT taxonomy includes 14 different roles）

The journal use CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to describe the key types of individual contributions. We require corresponding author to submit a separate credit authorship contribution statement form stating the co-authors contribution of the work. More Details can be found at https://credit.niso.org/

Please download the template credit authorship contribution statement form and upload it to the submission system at the Attach/Upload Files step.
1.1.8 Changes to authorship

Once a manuscript has been submitted, the journal will generally not accept requests to modify the list or order of authors. Any proposal to add or remove an author after submission may result in the withdrawal of the article. Authors are therefore required to determine and confirm the complete, final list of contributors, along with the order of authorship, before the initial submission.

Authorship change request at revision stage should send the Authorship change request form to the journal manager and editors for further approval.

If your manuscript has already been accepted and published, an Erratum or Corrigendum will be required.
1.1.9 Authorship disputes

Disputes regarding authorship should be resolved before submission whenever possible. The journal will not adjudicate authorship conflicts but may request documentation or statements from all involved parties. If a dispute arises after publication, the journal may publish an corrigendum，or retraction depending on the circumstances. Authors are expected to follow institutional and COPE guidelines in resolving disputes.
1.2.1 Ethical responsibilities

This journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE ). Any potential allegations of misconduct will be taken seriously and duly recorded. Authors are expected to uphold scholarly integrity and avoid any actions that could undermine trust in the journal. Scholarly integrity can be achieved by following these rules:

  • All submissions must represent original work. By submitting a manuscript, authors affirm that the content has not been previously published, except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture, or an academic thesis, and that the manuscript is not under consideration by any other journal or publisher. Exceptions may be made for substantially revised and extended versions of conference or workshop papers, provided that appropriate permissions have been obtained and the journal grants final approval. Any violation of this policy will result in immediate rejection of the manuscript and a six-month ban on future submissions to Tbench. The journal employs plagiarism-detection software to screen all submissions.
  • Authors must ensure that all text, data, images, and other research outputs are original and have not been obtained through fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Proper citation of relevant literature is required where appropriate, and authors must obtain permission for any copyrighted material used from external sources. For studies involving animal subjects, human participants, or associated biological materials and data, a statement confirming ethical approval or exemption from the relevant institutional or national ethics committee is mandatory, with the name of the approving committee explicitly provided.
  • Submitted manuscripts must not contain false or defamatory statements directed at individuals or groups, nor should they include content that poses a threat to national security or public health.
  • All authors must be aware of and agree to the authorship details prior to submission, including author names, affiliations, order of authors, and the designated corresponding author. Once a manuscript has been originally submitted, changes to authorship are generally not permitted. In exceptional cases, a formal request must be submitted, including a completed authorship change form and a detailed explanation, which will be reviewed by the journal. The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript if changes to authorship are deemed inappropriate during the revision process, and changes to authorship will not be accepted after the manuscript has been formally accepted for publication.
1.2.2 Allegations of misconduct

In cases where potential misconduct is suspected, the journal will conduct an investigation in accordance with the COPE guidelines. If the investigation indicates that the concern is substantiated, the author(s) in question will be contacted and provided an opportunity to respond.

Should misconduct be confirmed, the Editor-in-Chief may implement one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:

  • If the manuscript is under review, it may be rejected and returned to the author(s).
  • If the article has already been published, corrective action will be taken depending on the severity of the misconduct. This may include the publication of an erratum or, in serious cases, full retraction of the article. The reasons for such action will be clearly stated in the erratum or retraction notice.
  • The author’s affiliated institution may be notified.
1.3.1. Corrections

Post-publication errors reported by authors may be corrected following a full review by the journal’s editorial team.

The journal distinguishes between major and minor errors. Such errors may affect the interpretation of the article but do not compromise its scholarly integrity or original findings. Authors may be asked to provide additional information before a correction is approved.

Major errors identified after publication will result in a separate erratum notice, whereas minor errors will be corrected by means of a footnote in the published article.
1.3.2. Retractions

If serious errors or ethical issues are identified that cannot be corrected through a notice, the article may be retracted or withdrawn. TBench will follow the COPE guidelines in such cases.

Tbench journals follow COPE guidelines in handling appeals and complaints. Authors may submit one formal appeal per article if they believe an editorial decision was made in error. Appeals must include a clear explanation, responses to reviewer or editor comments, and any supporting evidence. All appeal decisions are final.

Complaints regarding publication ethics or the editorial and peer review process should be sent to the editorial office. These will be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor, who may consult the publisher or follow COPE guidance before deciding on appropriate action.


2. Conflict of interest

All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.

Generally, there are four kinds of declaration of competing interest.

Templates are shown below, please download the declaration of competing interest form and submit it with other materials in files upload stage.

  • If there is no competing of interests
    • The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
  • If the author is from the editorial board of the journal
    • The author xxx (author’s name) is for xxx( enter the journal’s name) and was not involved in the editorial review or the decision to publish this article.
  • If the author is an employee of the company or/and has received funding from the company
    • In either case, it is not acceptable to declare "no conflict of interest." A correct declaration should be made instead. Templates are shown below:
      • For employee of the company
        “The xxx （authors name） declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Authors are currently employed by XXX (the company’s name).”
      • Received funding from the company “The authors declare the following financial interests which may be considered as potential competing interests: the research project is funded by XXX (the company’s name).”
      • Combine the two statements if both apply. State all authors’ employment status and fundings if they are from different companies.
  • Other financial or non-financial interest that need to be disclosed
    For example: Ownership of stocks or shares, consulting fees, honoraria, patents, or other remunerations. personal, professional, or ideological positions that might influence the work...etc. ( please read the journal’s editorial polices for more information)

Management of Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Board Submissions

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists, including but not limited to:

  • Manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or close colleagues.
  • Manuscripts involving products, services, or interests in which they have a financial or personal stake.

Such manuscripts will be reassigned to an independent editor with no conflicts, who will oversee the confidential review process and make the final editorial decision.

For manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, or other editorial board members, editorial responsibility will similarly be delegated to a conflict-free editor to ensure impartiality. In the case of Special Issues, if conflicts arise between Guest Editors and authors, the handling will be transferred to editors free of such conflicts.

Reviewers should decline to review any manuscript in which they have a potential conflict of interest. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: Being currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or having served as a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past three years. Reviewers should accept an invitation only if no such conflicts exist between themselves and any of the authors.

3. Funding sources

Any research grants or financial support (e.g., salaries, equipment, travel reimbursement) from organizations that may be financially affected by the publication. Please provide the funder’s name and grant number where applicable. Authors should complete the funding statement using the template and upload to the submission system at the Attach/Upload Files step.

  • In case of no funding received:
    This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
  • If funding was received:
    e.g. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA [grant number zzzz]; and the United States Institutes of Peace [grant number aaaa].

Please note：It is not necessary to include detailed descriptions on the program or type of grants and awards. When funding is from a block grant or other resources available to a university, college, or other research institution, submit the name of the institute or organization that provided the funding.）


4. Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)

We are monitoring the ongoing developments in this area and will update these policies as appropriate.

Generative AI or AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors. In some cases, authors are not required to provide detailed declarations of AI usage. For example, AI tools may be used to assist with copy editing, improving readability, style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone of human-generated content. However, when AI or AI-assisted tools constitute an integral part of the research methodology or study design—for instance, in biomedical imaging—authors are required to provide a fully reproducible description of AI usage in the Methods section. This description should include details such as the model or tool name, version and extension numbers, and the manufacturer.Responsibility for the final version of the manuscript rests entirely with the human authors, who must confirm that any AI-assisted edits accurately represent their original work.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or modify images in submitted manuscripts is not permitted by the journal. This restriction applies to any action that enhances, obscures, moves, removes, or introduces specific features within an image or figure. However, adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable, provided that they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original image.

However, when AI or AI-assisted tools constitute an integral part of the research methodology or study design—for instance, in biomedical imaging—authors are required to provide a fully reproducible description of AI usage in the Methods section. This description should include details such as the model or tool name, version and extension numbers, and the manufacturer.

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork such as for book or commissioned content covers or graphical abstracts is not permitted.

The peer review process plays a critical role in scientific publishing. It relies heavily on the reviewers' in-depth subject knowledge and, in some cases, on the nuanced judgment and intuition of human experts. Currently, AI tools cannot fulfill the same role as humans, particularly in providing accurate, unbiased, and rigorous evaluations across all fields. Moreover, there is always a time lag between updates to AI tools and the advancement of cutting-edge research.

For reasons of confidentiality, reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, or any portion thereof, to generative AI tools. Doing so may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the journal or its authors and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could also constitute a breach of data privacy regulations.


5. Ethics

Ethics Statement

Authors are required to complete the Ethical Statement Form and upload it during the Attach/Upload Files step in the submission system. (NOTE: An ethical statement is mandatory for all submissions, regardless of whether the study involves animal or human research.)

If the study does not involve animals or humans:

No ethical approval was required for this study as it did not involve human or animal subjects.

Research Involving Animals

For studies involving animal subjects, authors must provide a statement confirming that the research was reviewed and approved — or granted an exemption — by the relevant institutional or national ethics committee. Authors are strongly encouraged to follow the 3Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). Further information is available at: https://nc3rs.org.uk/who-we-are/3rs .

Research Involving Humans

For studies involving human participants, human-derived materials, or associated data, authors must ensure compliance with recognized ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/ ), and confirm that appropriate ethical approval or exemption has been obtained.

An Ethical Statement must be included and should cover the following:

  • Ethics Committee Approval
    • State the full name of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or relevant institutional/national ethics committee that approved the study.
    • If the study was granted an exemption, provide official documentation from the ethics committee.
  • Informed Consent
    • Consent to participate
      Confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. (For participants under the age of 16, informed consent must be obtained from their legal guardians.)
    • Consent to publish
      Where applicable, confirm that participants provided consent for publication of identifiable images (e.g., “The authors affirm that human participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figure XXX.”).
      For clinical studies or case reports, confirm that patients signed informed consent for the publication of their data and photographs.

6. Peer-Review Policy

Peer review selection

In general, reviewer selection follows three basic principles:

  • Reviewers should have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, regardless of their career stage. Editors may request evaluations of specific aspects of the work, even if the overall topic is not the reviewer’s primary specialty.
  • Editors should make every effort to avoid inviting reviewers who may have a potential conflict of interest with any of the authors. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: Being currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or having served as a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past three years. Reviewers should accept an invitation only if no such conflicts exist between themselves and any of the authors.
  • Reviewers should not accept a review assignment solely to gain access to the manuscript without intending to submit a review. They should also decline invitations to review manuscripts that are very similar to a work they currently have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
Peer review training

All reviewers who receive an invitation and agree to review for the journal are expected to visit the journal’s homepage and carefully read the “Instructions for Reviewers” before beginning the review process. If reviewers have any questions, they may contact the editorial office, which will provide assistance to support them in completing the review.

This journal operates a double-blind review process. The Editor will initially assess all contributions for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the paper's scientific quality. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers that they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or related to products or services in which the Editor has a conflict of interest. Any such submission is subject to the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant Editor and their research groups.

Initial Manuscript Screening

Our journal is dedicated to the rapid publication of rigorous, high-quality research. Therefore, authors are expected to submit manuscripts that have been thoroughly proofread and refined for clarity, accuracy, and overall presentation. Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary review of all manuscripts to assess:

  • Ethical approval (if applicable)
  • Similarity check (plagiarism or high overlap)
  • Simultaneous submission check
  • Whether the manuscript complies with the double-anonymized review rules

Manuscripts failing to meet these basic standards will be desk rejected without being sent to reviewers. Authors will be informed accordingly.

Manuscripts passing this stage will be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an Associate Editor（AE).

Editor Assignment and Reviewer Invitation

After EIC or AE of the manuscripts are assigned, they will first have a comprehensive reading of your work, desk rejection will happen during this period due to several reasons such as out of the journal’s scope, lack of novelty, unclear language expression and so on. Reviewers will not be invited under this circumstances. Suitable manuscripts will typically sent to at least 2 independent expert reviewers for evaluation of their scientific merit and quality. The review process is generally completed within 1 to 2 months, depending on the editors’ and reviewers personal schedule. However, this period may be extended if editors and reviewers are simultaneously handling multiple manuscripts.

Feedback to Authors

Based on reviewers’ comments, the handling editor provides detailed feedback to the authors. Decisions at this stage may include acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection.

Revised Manuscript Handling

When authors submit revised manuscripts, the original handling editor and reviewers are invited to reassess the submission. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection will be made based on updated reviewer comments and editor assessment.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor makes the final decision on all manuscripts.The editorial decision is final and binding.

About Double anonymized review

This journal uses double anonymized review, which means the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:

Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address.

Anonymized manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations

The peer review process plays a critical role in scientific publishing. It relies heavily on the reviewers' in-depth subject knowledge and, in some cases, on the nuanced judgment and intuition of human experts. Currently, AI tools cannot fulfill the same role as humans, particularly in providing accurate, unbiased, and rigorous evaluations across all fields. Moreover, there is always a time lag between updates to AI tools and the advancement of cutting-edge research.

For reasons of confidentiality, reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, or any portion thereof, to generative AI tools. Doing so may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the journal or its authors and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could also constitute a breach of data privacy regulations.

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. They should evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and confidentially, providing constructive feedback in a timely manner. This journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and expects all reviewers to adhere to these principles. （COPE：https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers ）

Responsibilities of reviewers
  • Evaluate each manuscript solely on its academic merit, without discrimination based on personal or institutional factors.
  • Disclose any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could influence their judgment, and decline to review if such conflicts exist.
  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished content for personal advantage. Manuscript content must not be entered into tools or platforms that cannot
  • Give clear, respectful, and evidence-based comments that help the author improve their work, avoiding personal criticism or defamatory language.
  • Prepare the review independently unless authorized to involve others, and do not impersonate another reviewer. Avoid using AI tools to generate review content.
  • Submit the review within the agreed timeframe, and notify the editor if delays are unavoidable.
  • Inform the editorial team if they identify potential plagiarism, duplication, or other ethical issues.
Confidentiality

This journal uses a double-anonymized peer review process. Until publication, reviewers must treat all manuscript content — including the abstract — as strictly confidential. They should also ensure that their identity is not disclosed to the authors, whether through comments, file properties, or metadata in any submitted reports (e.g., Microsoft Word or PDF files). Additionally, Reviewers are not permitted to upload the manuscript, or any portion of it, to generative AI tools. Doing so may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of Tbench or the authors, and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could also result in a violation of data privacy regulations.

Management of Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Board Submissions Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists, including but not limited to:

  • Manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or close colleagues.
  • Manuscripts involving products, services, or interests in which they have a financial or personal stake.

Such manuscripts will be reassigned to an independent editor with no conflicts, who will oversee the confidential review process and make the final editorial decision.

For manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, or other editorial board members, editorial responsibility will similarly be delegated to a conflict-free editor to ensure impartiality. In the case of Special Issues, if conflicts arise between Guest Editors and authors, the handling will be transferred to editors free of such conflicts.

If you receive the invitation email and agree to review the manuscript, you are suggested reading the following instructions to foster your work.

- Before you review

  • Have you read the journal’s instructions for reviewers
  • Do you understand the peer review process of the journal you’re reviewing for?
  • Do you know the journal’s aims and scope?

- Start your review

  • Familiarize Yourself with the Journal
    Before starting the review, visit the journal’s official website (xxx) to carefully read its Aims and Scope as well as the Instructions for Authors. This will help you determine whether the manuscript under review aligns with the journal’s focus and meets its publication criteria.
  • Review the Manuscript in Detail
    When reading the manuscript, be sure to examine all components, including tables, figures, and any supplementary materials. In providing your assessment, pay particular attention to:
    • Originality and Relevance – Whether the work offers novel insights, is clearly presented, and is of interest to the journal’s target audience.
    • Methodological Rigor – The accuracy and soundness of the research methods used.
    • Evidence and Conclusions – Whether the results logically and adequately support the conclusions presented.Write a report
  • Write a report
    There are two purposes for your report: to provide the editor with information to enable them to make a decision, and to provide feedback to the author to help improve their work.
    A clear and structured report is recommended. It may include the following sections:
    • Summary
      Briefly restate the key findings as you understand them, and provide an overview of your general opinion of the manuscript.
    • Strengths
      Highlight positive aspects of the work, such as:
      • The study presents a highly novel research topic....
      • It offers valuable recommendations that may benefit ongoing studies in the field...
      • It addresses a significant gap in existing research...
    • Weaknesses
      Point out areas that may need improvement, such as:
      • Certain sections lack clarity or require more precise wording...
      • The methods section could benefit from additional details to ensure reproducibility...
      • The research reveals an interesting result regarding ...; however, further discussion on its meaning and potential implications would strengthen the paper...
  • Make an overall recommendation
    After completing your review and evaluating the manuscript’s quality, please select one of the following recommendations to assist the editor in making a decision.
    Accept-The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and can be accepted for publication without further changes.
    Minor Revisions-The paper is generally suitable for publication but requires small adjustments (e.g., clarifying text, minor formatting corrections, or addressing limited reviewer comments). Authors are normally given five days to complete these revisions.
    Major Revisions-The manuscript shows potential but needs substantial improvements—such as additional data analysis, expansion of the literature review, or reworking of specific sections. Authors should provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment or clearly explain if certain suggestions cannot be implemented. Authors are generally given 20 days to submit the revised version, which will be sent back to the reviewer for further evaluation.
    Reject-The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal due to serious methodological flaws, lack of originality, or other critical issues. In such cases, resubmission of the same paper will not be considered. If helpful, reviewers may explain in the confidential comments whether the recommendation is based on the significance of the research or on technical deficiencies.

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in the rejection of the manuscript, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers.

More information about peer reviewer fraud/falsification can be found here：


7. Data Availability and Reporting Standards

Please include a statement specifying where the data supporting the findings of this study are stored and how they can be accessed. Where applicable, provide links/DOIs to publicly archived datasets.

The data availability statement should clearly indicate whether any additional, unpublished data from the study are available, identify the potential recipients, and explain how such data can be obtained.

If the authors choose not to share their data or are unable to do so, the statement should explicitly note that the data will not be shared and provide the reasons.

Please download the template for data availability statement form and upload it to the submission system at the Attach/Upload Files step.

Template for Data Availability Statements

  • Data openly available in a public repository
    The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at [URL] or http://doi.org/[DOI], reference number [reference number].
  • Data available on request from the authors
    The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
  • Data available on request due to restrictions
    The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. However, the data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
  • Data sharing not applicable
    Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
  • Author elects not to share data
    The research data are not shared due to xxx reason.

To support clear and comprehensive communication of research, several consensus-based, study-design–specific reporting guidelines have been developed. For medicine, health, and biosciences research, we strongly recommend that authors consult these guidelines when preparing their manuscripts prior to submission. A comprehensive list of reporting guidelines is available at:


8. Open-access

Every peer-reviewed research article appearing in this journal will be published open access. This means that the article is universally and freely accessible via the internet in perpetuity, in an easily readable format immediately after publication. The author does not have any publication charges for open access always. The BenchCouncil Press will pay to make the article open access.The authors will have the opportunity to register BenchCouncil International Symposium on Benchmarking, Measuring and Optimizing (Bench) https://www.benchcouncil.org/bench/ and present their work.

A CC user license manages the reuse of the article. For articles published prior to November 1st, 2023, permitted third party reuse is defined by CC BY https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or CC BY-NC-ND https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ depending on author's choices. For articles published after November 1st, 2023, CC BY license will not be used and all articles will be published under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)For non-commercial purposes, lets others distribute and copy the article, and to include in a collective work (such as an anthology), as long as they credit the author(s) and provided they do not alter or modify the article.


9. Copyright and license

This journal is a peer-reviewed, fully open access publication owned by the BenchCouncil Press, which holds the copyright for the journal as a whole and for each compiled issue. Individual authors retain copyright over their own articles and grant the BenchCouncil Press a non-exclusive license for publishing and distribution rights.