Open Access Policy

All research articles published in JOINTS are fully open access and immediately freely accessible. Articles are posted online as soon as they have completed the production process in a fully citable form associated with a universal digital object identifier (DOI). Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license (see the Licensing section below), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format (but not for commercial use), provided that the original work is properly cited. Articles can be freely downloaded from our website without the need for a journal subscription and/or log in.

A complete version of the article and related supplementary material (including a copy of the permission, as stated above) is deposited in the CLOCKSS repository in a suitable standard electronic format immediately after the publication in JOINTS.

Editorial Process and Peer Review

JOINTS adopts single-blind peer review. Reviewers are anonymous unless they want to identify themselves by including their names in the review on our submission system. Selected reviewers need to declare the absence of a conflict of interest in order to proceed with the review process.

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics.

All contributions are initially handled by the Editor-in-Chief (or by a handling Editor on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief), who conducts the first assessment of the manuscript by verifying whether it falls within the aims and scope of the journal and adheres to the journal’s guidelines and policies. The subsequent decision may be peer-reviewing or rejecting the manuscript. Only the manuscripts that meet our editorial criteria pass this first step and undergo external and internal peer review. Papers judged by the handling Editor as weak or otherwise inappropriate are rejected without undergoing further external peer review (although this decision may be based on informal advice from experts in the field). After this step, the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to 2-4 internal and external peer reviewers. In order to be eligible for the peer review of the manuscript, reviewers must confirm that they did not co-author articles with one or more of the authors of the manuscript during the last 5 years, that they are affiliated with institutions different from those of the authors and that they do not have any conflict of interest in relation to the content of the manuscript. Authors may suggest independent reviewers, but the journal will only consider these suggestions upon verifying the reviewers’ identity and expertise and ensuring no conflicts of interest exist between the authors and the proposed reviewers. After receiving the comments and recommendations from peer reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief (or the handling Editor on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief) makes another evaluation of the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and retains final authority to either allow for manuscript revision or reject the manuscript. In the final editorial decision, Editors evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments raised by each reviewer and of the authors’ replies. Editors may also take into account additional information which is not available to either party. Editors may also reassign the revised manuscript to additional reviewers (who were not involved in the first review) for further evaluation, particularly when reviewers disagree with each other or when they may have misunderstood or misinterpreted crucial points of the manuscripts. Reviewers should bear in mind that manuscripts submitted to our journal contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Following the reviewers’ evaluations, the Editors deliberate on various options. They may opt to accept the submission, either with or without requiring revisions. Alternatively, they might suggest revisions to the authors, indicating specific areas for improvement before a final decision is made. In some cases, a rejection may be warranted, but with guidance for the authors on how further work could potentially justify a resubmission. Manuscripts may be rejected outright, typically due to limited relevance to the specialist audience, lack of originality, insufficient advancement in concepts, or significant technical or interpretational flaws.

Authors’ Appeals

Articles that have been rejected may be resubmitted solely if all concerns outlined in the rejection feedback are thoroughly rectified and accompanied by a detailed letter delineating the resolution of these concerns. In no circumstances will an article be reconsidered if it was rejected due to significant issues.

The journal is open to authentic appeals concerning editorial decisions. Any appeal can be sent to submission.joints@verduci.it via an official letter signed by all authors, including the specific responses to any comments made by reviewers for rejection and any new information or data that the authors wish the journal to consider. It is imperative to substantiate your case with compelling evidence or novel data in response to the feedback provided by the editor and reviewers.

The Editor in Chief evaluates the authors’ argument alongside the reviewers’ reports to determine whether an additional opinion is necessary. The journal will promptly inform the authors about the outcome of the complaint. The Editor in Chief may either uphold the initial decision or invite authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript with updated information. Note that decisions on appeals are final. Please refrain from appealing the journal’s decision unless you can furnish a substantial body of evidence to support your complaint.

Timing

The journal evaluates all manuscript submissions as expeditiously as possible. Nonetheless, the duration of the peer-review process may vary depending on factors such as the availability of reviewers, the author’s response to revision timelines, and the extent of revisions needed. For instance, if there are conflicting reports from reviewers or if a report is delayed, additional expert opinions may be solicited. Additionally, revised manuscripts typically undergo reassessment by the original reviewers for feedback. Reviewers may also request multiple revisions of a manuscript. The editorial office responds promptly to authors upon receiving feedback from reviewers. Therefore, authors should only contact the editorial office in cases of significant delay, defined as exceeding 2 months since the last feedback.

Specific Policies

Submission by the Editor-in-Chief or handling Editor: The Editor-in-Chief and the handling Editor do not handle their own submissions. Editorial Board Members, free from any conflict of interest, oversee the handling of submissions, assigning each manuscript to a minimum of two external reviewers. Final decisions regarding submissions are made by other Editorial Board Members who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. The annual total submissions should not exceed a reasonable number.

Submission by Editorial Board Members: Editorial Board Members can submit papers to the journal. However, these submissions do not receive preferential treatment or priority over other manuscripts, and being an Editorial Board Member does not influence editorial decisions. A paper submitted by Editorial Board Members will be handled by Editorial Board Members with no conflicts of interest with the manuscript or authors. At least two independent reviewers are selected as per journal policy. Editorial Board Members are not authorized to contact or request information about the peer-review process from other members of the editorial board or the Editor-in-Chief.

Submission by authors affiliated with the same institution of one of the journal Editors: A paper submitted by an author for whom potential COI exists (or who is affiliated with the same institution of one of the Editors) will be handled by a handling Editor who does not have any COI to disclose in relation to the review process and who is affiliated with a different institution. The handling Editor will recruit and select reviewers and make all the decisions on the paper. The same policy will apply to articles submitted by a member of the Editor’s family or by an author whose relationship with the Editor may create the perception of bias (e.g., close friendship or conflict/rivalry). In the presence of any doubt on potential COI or sources of bias, the handling Editor will consult with the Editor-in-Chief.

Potential COI for Reviewers: The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: “If you know or believe to know the identity of one or more of the authors, and if you feel that there is any potential conflict of interest in your review of this paper due to your relationship with the author (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or due to any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest to disclose”.

Publication Ethics and Recommendations

JOINTS follows the guidelines on Good Publication Practice: COPE and ICMJE. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Moreover, in accordance with the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, we expect that authors, reviewers and editors follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behavior.

Some specific information about the responsibilities of authors, the journal, and reviewers is as follows:

• Authors and the Journal have to follow the Good Publication Practice: COPE and ICMJE guidelines. Please also check the Scientific Misconduct, Expressions of Concern, and Retraction guidelines from ICMJE.
• JOINTS, authors, and reviewers have to guarantee confidentiality and do not have to share information about manuscripts, including peer review, their content or status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and the final decision about rejection or acceptance to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
• JOINTS and reviewers have to ensure the timely processing of manuscripts. On the other hand, authors have to ensure timely communication and availability to reply to concerns during the review and publication process.
• Peer review is the most critical assessment of the scientific process and should be followed rigorously. Specific information about our peer-review process can be found above.
• Integrity should be the standpoint of both authors and the journal. The Editorial decisions about the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript should be based on the research’s originality, contribution to the scientific society, relevance to the topic of the journal, and quality standards. Those decisions should not be jeopardized by commercial interests or personal relations.
• The spread of academic culture and scientific knowledge should also support diversity and inclusion for authors as well as reviewers, editorial board members and editorial staff.

Confidentiality and Pre-Publicity

Editors, authors, and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process for submitted manuscripts. The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. Correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicized without prior written consent. Our policy is to keep their names confidential and do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee the confidentiality of this information in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

Authors of papers that contain taxonomy should be aware that it is possible for third parties to exploit the prior publication of nomenclature at any time between the online posting of a preprint and the print publication date in a journal. Joints takes no responsibility for such assertions of priority in the case of manuscripts that it publishes if the content of those manuscripts has previously appeared in the public domain as online preprints or other forms of online posting.

AI in Peer-Review

According to ICMJE guidelines, reviewers may use AI technology to aid their review after obtaining permission from the journal. However, they should be aware that using AI in manuscript processing can breach confidentiality. Manuscripts often contain sensitive information that must remain within the peer-review process. In addition, generative AI tools have significant limitations, including outdated information and the risk of generating biased or false content. Therefore, reviewers are advised not to upload manuscripts to generative AI tools.

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

Authorship

Submission to JOINTS is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed on all the contents, including the author list and author contributions statements. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that this agreement has been achieved and that all authors have agreed to the submission, and is also in charge of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors before and after publication. Any changes to the author list after submission need to be approved by every author.

According to the ICMJE recommendations, authorship is based on 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published;
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

The author list should include all appropriate researchers and no others. Authorship provides credit for a researcher’s contributions to a study and carries accountability. JOINTS does not prescribe the kinds of contributions that warrant authorship but encourages transparency by publishing author contributions statements since the Journal is not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be brought up to the relevant institutional authority.

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated.

Corresponding Authors’ Responsibilities

The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and managing communication between coauthors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, that its order has been agreed upon by all authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted.

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work to mention any unpublished material included in the manuscript. The corresponding author also must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere by other authors (for example, figures) and provide written permission from those authors and/or publishers for the re-use of such material. He/She/They have 3 months to submit the revised version of the manuscript.

After acceptance, the galley proof is sent to the corresponding author, who shares it with all coauthors and deals with the journal on their behalf; the journal will not necessarily correct errors after publication if they result from errors that were present on a galley proof that was not shown to coauthors before publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all contents in the galley proof, in particular, that the names of coauthors are present and correctly spelled and that affiliations are right.

The name and e-mail address of the corresponding author are published in the paper.

Authors of published material have a responsibility to inform the journal promptly if they become aware of any part that requires correcting. Any published correction requires the consent of all co-authors, so time is saved if requests for corrections are accompanied by a signed agreement by all authors. In cases where one or some authors do not agree with the correction statement, the coordinating author must include correspondence to and from the dissenting author(s).

Changes to authorship

Authors should consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the first submission. Any deletion, addition or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list can be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

To request this change, the Editor-in-Chief must receive a letter from the Corresponding Author (at submission.joints@verduci.it) specifying the reason for the change in the author list, along with a written confirmation letter from all authors that they agree with the removal, addition, or rearrangement. In the case of removal or addition of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being removed or added.

Should the corresponding author fail to fulfill the aforementioned responsibilities (e.g., not responding to critical emails, not aiding authors in journal-related requests), the journal reserves the prerogative to communicate with all authors to resolve any disputes or issues. For instance, if an author contacts the editorial office seeking modifications to the article, the corresponding author must provide consent within a reasonable timeframe. Should the corresponding author neglect to do so, the journal may exceptionally consider the request from the other author if accompanied by a letter signed by all other authors.

Data and Materials Availability

A foundational principle of publication entails enabling others to replicate and advance the claims made by authors in their published works. A requisite for publication in the JOINTS is that authors must promptly provide materials, data, code, and associated protocols to readers without undue restrictions. This requirement aims to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of published results.

All original research manuscripts published in our journal must include a data availability statement. In cases where no new data have been generated, such as in a review, the statement “No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data Availability is not applicable to this article” should be included.

The data availability statement must transparently outline the conditions for accessing the “minimum dataset” essential for interpreting, verifying, and extending the research in the article. The manuscript should specify who will make the data available, and any sharing restrictions must be discussed with the editor upon submission, who reserves the right to decline the study if these conditions are deemed unduly prohibitive. It is generally expected that the corresponding author (or relevant designated authors) will be responsible for the availability of data and materials unless stated otherwise.

Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission, and such restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript. Editors may decline further consideration of the manuscript if restrictions are found to be excessively prohibitive after evaluation.

Data availability statements should include pertinent information on the following aspects:

Access to primary datasets (generated during the study) and referenced datasets (analyzed in the study) must be provided. Accession codes or other unique identifiers, if relevant and publicly available, should be provided.

– For clinical trial data, authors should adhere to ICMJE guidelines, providing details on the sharing of de-identified participant data, specific data to be shared, availability of related documents, timeline for data availability, access criteria, and mechanism for sharing.

Examples of data-sharing statements can be found in Table 1 of the following link.

– Third-party data should be made available for peer-review upon request, within the terms of a data use agreement, and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

• Proprietary data: It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure and obtain an agreement with the third-party data provider, ensuring that the datasets utilized in the study will be accessible under the conditions specified in the data availability statement.
• Administrative data (including data maintained by governments, local authorities, and international organizations): Research utilizing administrative data must ensure adherence to local regulatory and legal frameworks governing data usage.

When third-party data cannot be made available, the data availability statement should clearly state the restrictions.

Including large datasets in supplementary information is not recommended. The preferred approach is to make the data accessible through repositories.

Data retention

Data citation

Datasets deposited in repositories should be formally cited in the article reference list, including authors, title, publisher (repository name), and identifier. The accession number must also be provided in the paper for datasets.

Readers encountering refusal by authors to comply with these policies after publication should contact the Editor in Chief. In unresolved cases, the journal may involve the authors’ funding institution and/or publish a formal correction statement online, acknowledging the inability of readers to obtain necessary materials for replication.

Conflicts of Interest (COI)

At the time of submission, JOINTS policy requires that authors disclose potential conflicts of interest (COI), including financial interests, direct and indirect connections, or any other situation that could raise questions of bias in either the reported work or its conclusions, implications, or related opinions. Potential COI to be disclosed include any relevant commercial or noncommercial source of funding for either author(s), the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s) or organization(s). When considering whether you should declare a COI, please consider the following question: “Is there any arrangement that would embarrass you or any of your co-authors, which you did not declare and would emerge after publication?”.

As an integral part of the online submission process, Corresponding Authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any COI to disclose. If the Corresponding Author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the other authors will then be required to send a completed COI form to the Editorial Office. It is the Corresponding Author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy. Information on potential COI must be reported in the manuscript (see Instructions for authors).

• COI in Industry-Sponsored Research

Authors whose manuscripts are submitted for publication must declare all relevant sources of funding in support of the preparation of a manuscript. JOINTS requires full disclosure of financial support as to whether it is from the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical or any other industry, government agencies, or any other source. This information should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript (see Instructions for authors). Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether the text was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission (e.g., whether the study was written with full investigator access to all relevant data and whether the sponsor exerted editorial influence over the written text). This information should be included in the Cover letter. In addition to the disclosure of direct financial support to the authors or their laboratory and prior sponsor’s review of the paper, authors are required to disclose all relevant consultancies within 12 months prior to submission since the views expressed in the contribution could be influenced by the opinions they have expressed privately as consultants. This information should be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. In the event that a previously undisclosed potential competing interest for an author of a published paper comes to the attention of the Editors and is subsequently confirmed by the authors, the undeclared interest will be published as an erratum in a future volume of the journal.

• COI Policy: Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers must disclose to Editors any COI that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they deem it appropriate. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential COI may mean either that such COI exists but has not been properly disclosed or that COI does not exist. Reviewers must, therefore, also be asked to state explicitly whether COI exists or does not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work before its publication to further their own interests. COI for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process (e.g., author, reviewer, editor) has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether the judgment is affected. Financial relationships with industry (e.g., employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important COI. However, COI can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. External peer reviewers should disclose to Editors any COI that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they deem it appropriate. The Editors must be aware of the reviewers’ COI to interpret the review reports and evaluate whether the reviewer should be disqualified from the peer review process. Additional details are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Annals of Internal Medicine 118, (8) 646-647.

Authors who wish to publish in JOINTS must follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Plagiarism and Other Types of Unethical Publication Practice

JOINTS disapproves any kind of malpractice and unethical publication practice. With regard to plagiarism or other types of unethical publication practice, Authors who wish to publish in our journal must follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Scientific misconduct in both research and non-research publications encompasses various acts, including but not limited to data fabrication, data falsification (including deceptive manipulation of images), intentional failure to disclose relationships and activities, and plagiarism. In cases where scientific misconduct is suspected or concerns arise regarding the conduct or integrity of work presented in submitted or published papers, the journal promptly initiates an investigation in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

For submitted articles, should editors receive evidence, possibly from reviewers, regarding serious misconduct, they will share this information with the relevant institutions while also informing the authors of their actions. Where allegations of serious misconduct lack persuasive evidence, editors may seek expert guidance. If the experts ascertain no indications of misconduct, the editorial process will continue as usual.

For published articles, if any violation or unethical practice is raised after publication, The Editor in Chief can decide to start an independent investigation with a new set of reviewers. Based on the outcome of the investigation, the Editor in Chief may decide to publish an expression of concern to inform readers that an investigation is ongoing or to retract the article.

Plagiarism

Our journal uses certified plagiarism checker software (Grammarly^®) to verify the authenticity of articles and detect duplications from each article’s content online against billions of web pages. By submitting manuscripts to the journal, authors accept that their work will be checked for plagiarism from previously published articles.

First, we conduct a pre-emptive investigation using our certified anti-plagiarism software. Articles that represent suspected cases of plagiarism or other unethical practices undergo a careful check for accuracy by the reviewer(s) and Editors. Our anti-plagiarism software, however, is not able to identify the so-called “salami slicing”. Therefore, it is imperative that each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We do not advocate the use of one statement of actions to penalize the offender. Each case is considered separately, and, as Editors, we will need to decide if the suspected case of plagiarism or unethical publication practice is a deliberate action on the part of the author or if it is due to a lack of understanding of the requirements of ethical writing. This can happen for new authors or some authors for whom English translation is difficult. An example of this is when there are no words/phrases in the author-specific language that properly translate into English.

The utilization of text copied from another source requires a citation from the original source. If a study’s design or the structure and language of the manuscript have been influenced by prior studies, it is essential to explicitly reference these studies.

Duplicate Publication

Material submitted to JOINTS must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. This rule applies to material submitted elsewhere while the JOINTS contribution is under consideration.

A duplicate publication is a publication that significantly overlaps with a prior publication by sharing the same hypothesis, data, discussion, and conclusions without evident and clear reference to the previous study. The journal considers this behavior unethical. If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to JOINTS has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the cover letter accompanying the submission. The journal retains the authority to reject any submitted manuscripts without prior notification in the event of duplicate content. If the journal was previously unaware of the duplicate publications, it may deem it necessary to retract the article, regardless of the author’s explanation or consent. JOINTS follows the COPE guidelines for duplicate publication. 

• Publishing an abstract in earlier meeting proceedings does not prevent subsequent submission for publication. However, it is mandatory to fully disclose this issue during the submission process.

• Re-publishing a paper in a different language is acceptable, granted there is complete and conspicuous disclosure of its original source upon submission. This must be clearly and fully disclosed both in the cover letter and in the manuscript. Failure to disclose this issue at the time of submission will result in rejection.

Image Integrity and Manipulation

Images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (for instance, to add arrows to a micrograph). Authors should retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as editors may request them to aid in manuscript evaluation. All digitized images submitted with the final revision of the manuscript must be of high quality.

Positive and negative controls, as well as molecular size markers, should be included on each gel and blot – either in the main figure or an expanded data supplementary figure.

The authors should provide the editors with original data on request. Cells from multiple fields should not be juxtaposed in a single field; instead, multiple supporting fields of cells should be shown as Supplementary Information. Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges, and the altering of high signals should be avoided. If “pseudo-coloring” and nonlinear adjustment (for example, “gamma changes”) are used, this must be disclosed. Adjustments of individual color channels are sometimes necessary on “merged” images, but this should be noted in the figure legend.

Improper technical manipulation includes obscuring, enhancing, deleting, or introducing new elements into an image. If there are concerns about the authenticity of an author’s figures, the Editor in Chief reserves the right to request the original data from the authors and to reject the manuscript in case of suspect figure manipulation. The journal employs accredited software to identify integrity concerns in figures. By submitting their manuscript to the journal, authors acknowledge that their work may undergo screening to detect any instances of image duplication or manipulation. The journal adheres to COPE guidelines to deal with concerns of image manipulation after publication.

Original Images of Blots and Gels

To uphold the integrity and scientific validity of blotting techniques, i.e., Western blots and the reporting of gel data, authors are advised to upload original, uncropped, and unadjusted images as Supporting Information files when submitting their manuscript initially.

Therefore, it is strongly suggested to include either a single PDF file or a zip folder containing all original images featured in the manuscript figures and, if applicable, supplementary figures. Authors are required to label each original image to correspond with the figures in the main article.

Furthermore, all experimental samples and controls used for comparative analysis should be run on the same blot/gel image, and the practice of splicing together different images to depict results should be avoided.

Requirements for Reuse of Published Figures

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. JOINTS editors consider all material in good faith that their journal has full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

Licensing

JOINTS applies a Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) to all articles published in the journal. If authors submit their paper for consideration for publication in our journal, they agree to have the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license applied to their work as follows:

BY: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

NC: NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

ND: NonDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

No additional restrictions: You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices: You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.