Send the article title and DOI, the specific issue, supporting reasoning or evidence, relevant references, and any competing interests to the editorial office. Comments should be concise enough to permit focused assessment.

Focus on the work rather than personal characteristics. Clearly distinguish demonstrated errors, unresolved questions, and differences of interpretation. Do not include unnecessary confidential or identifying participant information.

Editors assess relevance, clarity, evidence, and contribution to understanding the article. Authors may be invited to respond, and independent specialist advice may be sought where needed.

A response opportunity does not give authors control over whether a valid criticism is considered. Equally, disagreement with an article does not automatically require publication of a comment.

Relevant concerns raised on external scholarly platforms may also be examined when brought to the journal’s attention. Reporters need not secure publication of a commentary before a credible integrity concern is assessed.

Where publication is appropriate, comments and replies are clearly identified and linked to the article. Editorially assessed correspondence is not presented as having undergone standard external peer review.

A contribution presented as a new research article follows the standard Review Model. No automatic right to publication or a fixed publication period is promised.

The journal’s correspondence procedure does not restrict lawful public criticism or reuse of CC BY 4.0 material outside the journal.