1. Authorship and Author Contributions:

• 1.1. Authorship policy

The corresponding author should ensure that all listed authors meet the Authorship and Contribution criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

These criteria describe each author:

• Made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
• drafted the manuscript or revised the draft critically for important parts of the manuscript's content.
• approved the submitted manuscript and agreed with the subsequent submitted revisions.

The article submitting author and the corresponding author(s) will receive an acknowledging notice of the manuscript submission. If any author does not agree with the submitted manuscript, the author should contact the editorial office right away after receiving the notice by email. If the article is submitted by a group of researchers, at least one of them should be clearly mentioned as being responsible for making communications with the journal’s team about matters related to the manuscript publication and for responding to inquiries, if any, about the published article. This author's name and contact information is required to be presented as the “Corresponding Author” on the title page. The corresponding author should ensure that all authors agree to be the co-authors; accept their order of names as listed in the submitted article; agree on the content of the article and its submission for publication; and have approved the final version of the paper. The article submitting author will receive an acknowledging notice of the manuscript submission. If any author does not agree with the submitted manuscript, it is the corresponding author should contact the editorial office right away after receiving the notice by email.

• 1.2. Changes to authorship

Any change of authorship after manuscript submission should have the agreement of all original authors by signature and approved by the Editor. If the change is requested after the manuscript has already been published, any approved requests will be in the form of a corrigendum.

• 1.3. Author contributions

Each manuscript should include a section of the Author's contributions to the manuscript. The role can be some but not necessarily all of the following: Conceptualization; Data collection, Data analysis and validation; Funding acquisition; Experimental design; Methodology; Project management and supervision; Resources and instrumentation; Software use or design; Writing of original draft; Manuscript modification.

2. Data Integrity and Fabrication:

• 2.1. Data Fabrication and Manipulation

Deliberate manipulation of research findings/data with the intention of producing false research impression is denounced by Neoplasia Research. Image manipulation, removal of results unsupportive to the conclusion, changing/adding/deleting graph points etc. are all considered as data fabrication, though this list is not exhaustive, and not allowed in submitted articles. Nevertheless, proper technical manipulation of a complete image/graph is permissible if required for better readability, however, any such technical manipulation is required to be clearly mentioned in cover letter accompanying the submitted article. Any partial manipulation involving parts, rather than the full image, is strictly forbidden. Editors are instructed to follow COPE guidelines to handle any falsification of data according to the: Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

Neoplasia Research team particularly deals with illustrative information in submitted articles however, in rare cases if data fabrication is brought to notice after the article is published, the editors will deal with these issues following COPE’s guidelines, please see: Fabricated data suspected in a published article (publicationethics.org)

• 2.2. Research Data Policy and Data Availability Statements

If an article submitted to the Neoplasia Research presents some research where some data has been generated/analyzed, we encourage the authors to share this data, provided this is not prohibited due to some justified reasons. Such data sharing is especially stressed if data will ease the comprehension, evaluation, or extension of the published research by the readers and it has a significant effect on the conclusion of the study.

Data may be shared in the form of additional supplementary files or if it has been deposited in a data repository, the digital object identifiers (DOIs) or data accession numbers may be provided in the submitted article. Alternatively, a web link to datasets may also be shared by the authors. Authors may use any commonly available repositories such as GiTHub, Figshare or Dryad etc. for depositing their data.

If authors feel that the data will be required for peer review of their article, they should blind the authorship of any data provided for peer review at the time of article submission as Neoplasia Research journals are committed to indiscriminately follow the double-blinded peer review policy. Data repositories providing such author-blinding services are available and authors may request for these.

Also, whenever the research involves data usage, a statement of Data availability/unavailability must be mentioned in the article. Such statements may take any of the forms given below:

• The datasets generated and/or analyzed during this study are available in the [NAME] repository, [PERSISTENT WEB LINK TO DATASETS/DOI/Data Accession Number]
• Authors are unable to publicly present the datasets generated and/or analyzed during the present study due to [REASON WHY DATA ARE NOT PUBLIC] however, it may be provided by the corresponding author on reasonable request.
• Supplementary information files in this article present the data used/generated during this study.

3. Editing and Reviewing Process:

• 3.1. Editing policy and the reviewing process

All manuscripts will be subjected to first screening by the three editors (editor in chief, executive editor, managing editor) to determine whether they will be sent out for peer review.  At least two reviewers (although in general three reviewers) are selected for the review of each article while the editor can consider recruiting up to six reviewers. Acceptance will be considered only with the majority (more than 50%) acceptance of the peer reviewer process.  Reviewers will recommend either: 1) acceptance as it is; 2) major revision; 3) minor revision; 4) rejection; or 5) recommendation for transfer to other journals such as the journals by the partner publisher(s).  If only two reviewers are involved, and finally it results that one of them accepts the manuscript while the other one rejects, at least one more reviewer (chosen by the editors) will be recruited for a new cycle of review.  If out of two appointed reviewers one accepts the manuscript while the other one suggests major revision, the manuscript will be resubmitted for an additional cycle of review by the reviewer who recommends major revision. For minor revision recommended by the reviewers, the manuscript will be sent to the author for revision, and the recommendation for publication will be relied on by the editor or associate editor.

4. Ensuring the Integrity of the Academic Record:

Neoplasia Research team work meticulously to ensure that the content published by its platform is final and academically reliable and integrity of the research record is maintained. However, in exceptional cases of serious mistakes revealed after the publication of the articles, our team members work promptly for taking the actions deemed necessary to maintain the integrity of academic record. Both authors and publisher are supposed to participate in this process according to the COPE’S respective guidelines.

In extremely rare situations of any serious error/ statement revealed in our published articles, Neoplasia Research follows its post publication policies as described below. All post-publication changes are carried out according to the COPE guidelines.

• 4.1. Article Correction

It is Neoplasia Research’s policy that our published articles should remain exact and unaltered to the maximally possible extent. However, if an author discovers a scientifically significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work especially those that may affect the interpretation of data or reliability of the information presented in the article, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor/ Publisher and cooperate with the editor to correct the error. The Editor of the journal will determine the impact of the change in the article and decide on the appropriate course of action. To keep our readers fully informed and maintain the integrity of the scholarly record any necessary changes will be accompanied with a post-publication corrigendum/Erratum/Editorial expression of concern, permanently linked to the original article. A correction for a published article will only be considered after receiving approval and instructions from the EiC of the journal. In rare cases, post-publication Corrections may be considered by the publisher if the errors adversely affect the publication record, or the repute of the journal. All corrections are made according to the COPE Guidelines.

• 4.2. Article Retraction

In rare cases of serious issues discovered after the publication of an article like errors in the conducting/analyzing/reporting of the study; Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, data falsification and fabrication by the authors, the articles may be retracted by Neoplasia Research. The original article will be visible on the journal’s website marked as “retracted” with a brief retraction statement linked to the PDF version of the original article. 

• 4.3. Article Removal

In case Neoplasia Research faces exceptional circumstances of finding some published article defamatory, unlawful in any form, infringing on a third party’s legal rights, or imposing serious and immediate risks to health if practiced, or on receiving a clearly stated court/state order it reserves the right to remove such article, either temporarily or permanently. The title of the removed article and its authors’ names will be retained at the journal website, and a short declaration note will be available to the readers for knowing brief reasons for the removal.

5. Ethics in Publications in RNA and Nanomedicine:

This statement explains the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for their journals, including authors, the Editor in Chief, Editorial Board Members, reviewers, and the publisher.

All Neoplasia Research journals follow the guiding principles of International Standards for Authors and Editors of Committee on Publication Ethics, Federal Research Misconduct Policy and NIH regulation.

• 5.1. Ethical Duties
  • 5.1.1. Ethical Duties of Authors

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive. Fraudulent, or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are therefore, unacceptable.

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. If practicable the authors should retain such data for a reasonable time (7-10 years) after publication.

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted appropriately. Plagiarism in any form (using another's paper as the author's own; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without proper attribution; and claiming results from research conducted by others) constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable under all conditions.

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal as primary publication. Likewise submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical in publishing world and is unacceptable.

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite the
publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Sources of financial support/funding for the research or project reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.

All authors should disclose any financial or another substantive conflict of interest in their manuscript that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

If the Editors or Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then the author will be contacted and it will be the author’s obligation to make a prompt request to the editor for correction by providing corrected  material or provide an evidence to the journal’s Editors of the correctness of the paper or else, the paper may be retracted as per decision of the editors.

Only persons who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors on the manuscript, as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (a) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (b) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but do not meet the criteria for authorship, must not be listed as an author, rather acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition), and no inappropriate coauthors, are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication.

Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript at the earliest stage possible (generally at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript). Examples include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, participation in speaker’s bureaus, membership, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs about the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number, if any).

Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without written permission from the source.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures are performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be considered.

Authors are obliged to cooperate fully by responding promptly to Editors requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline.

If the Editors/Publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct the paper through editors’ guidance and assistance (to prevent retraction of their article) or provide evidence to the journal’s Editors of the correctness of the paper.

The following actions may be considered by the editors to resolve a disputed article issue. All post-publication changes are carried out according to the COPE guidelines.

• 5.1.2. Ethical Duties of Editors

The respective Editor-in-Chief of each Neoplasia Research Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and when. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board concerning subjects of legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Decisions to publish are not influenced by the government or any other agency’s policies outside the concerned journal. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision, however, bearing full authority over entire editorial panel. Editors of Neoplasia Research are expected to take notice of necessary corrections, retractions and apologies occurring in their journal and warrant the integrity of publications. The editors advise journals’ team the ways to improve the standard of publications and assure the strict evaluation of submitted articles by qualified peer reviewers. They are supposed to advise and support the steps taken by the members to discourage misconduct in publication and research activities. Editors make sure that the published articles do not involve the unethical practices of ghost authors and ambiguous financial supporters; any form of financial funding is therefore stressed to be clearly mentioned in the articles. All submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased double-blinded evaluation.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the expressed written consent of the author. Editors will only evaluate manuscripts for which they have NO substantial conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.

All submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased double-blinded evaluation.

Neoplasia Research explicitly states that no submission from EiC/EBM/member of journal’s staff will be an exception to our double-blind review process. To maintain transparency in publication such submissions are reviewed by external reviewers and decisions about them are taken by the least conflicted editorial board member/EIC. At Neoplasia Research though every effort is made to exclude the possibility of a biased review at all steps, it is an ethical duty of Editors to refrain themselves from participating in review/evaluation of any article where a potential conflict of interest with the author/content of the article may exist.

Editors are suggested to follow COPE guidelines where they feel misconduct in review process of any article.

5.1.3. Ethical Duties of Reviewers

Peer review is imperial for all submissions to Neoplasia Research journals; it assists the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board members in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Thus reviewers are considered as the base of the whole quality process. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. All reviews should be conducted objectively with no personal criticism to the author. Reviewers should express their critique clearly with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call for the Editor-in-Chief's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper that is in their personal knowledge.

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential by the reviewers and not used for personal advantage; this also includes the reviewers who have declined to review the manuscript.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, firms or institutions connected to the papers. Any such conflict should be disclosed to the Editor-in-Chief by the reviewer. The Editors will then determine sufficiency of the conflict to exclude the reviewer from peer review.

Reviewers are expected to follow COPE’s Guidelines which can be viewed in detail here. 

More details can be found here.

• 5.1.4. Ethical Duties of Publisher

The editorial members are given independence in their relationship to the publisher; and their decisions about publication of articles are never influenced by the publisher, rather the quality and suitability of submission are given sole consideration. Neoplasia Research ensures its regular communication with the editors. To handle any unethical publishing behavior the Publisher will be involved. In cases of scientific misconduct, plagiarism or fraudulent publication, the Publisher (with the editors) is responsible to clarify the situation and take appropriate actions which may include release of an erratum or correction; even a retraction may be instructed. The Publisher, with the editors, will make every possible effort to prevent the publication of fraudulent material and to forbid any misconduct that may be taken place. Editors of the journal are supposed to work with Publisher for dealing with any issue related to the intellectual property issues and   to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws. In this regard editors are to support the authors who have become the plagiarism victims or whose copyrights have been exploited. Working with publisher the editors should defend authors’ rights and punish the offenders by making requests to the publisher for retraction of the published material from the journal website.

The Publisher is committed to ensure the all-time-availability of its published material; the contents of its journals are preserved and made accessible to the readers by partnering with the corresponding organizations.

• 5.2. Post-Publication Correction:
  • 5.2.1. Article Withdrawal

Requests for article withdrawal may be made by the authors, only for early versions of articles which sometimes contain errors or may have been accidentally submitted twice. 

Article Retraction

Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, false claims of authorship, plagiarism and fraudulent use of data, falsification and fabrication by the authors can result in the retraction of their article from the journal’s website by the editor.

• Article Removal

This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes on others legal rights, or where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk.

For more information on the International Standards for Authors click here .

• 5.3. Other Ethical Considerations:
  • 5.3.1. Permission of previously published data

If any data or material has been published previously, the inclusion of written permissions from the copyright holder is necessary.  It is the author's responsibility to obtain permission (or make payment if needed). In case of manuscripts co-authored  by more than one author, it is the corresponding authors' responsibility to check for possible copyright conflict with the copyright holder of any part of the work included in his/her article and agree to Neoplasia Research Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.

• 5.3.2. Human and animal rights Ethical Statement

If the manuscript involves animal or human data or subjects, it is the author's responsibility to obtain appropriate paperwork for the approval of the use of animal and human subjects before doing the experiment and before submitting the manuscript.

In case of involvement of human participants in the study, the approval of the study granted from the institutional review board or equivalent committee(s) must be clearly mentioned with the name of the board provided by the authors in the manuscript. Informed consent from human participants must have been obtained (or in case of lack of consent its reason must be explicitly explained, e.g., the data were analyzed retrospectively). All clinical investigations are expected to be conducted according to the principles specified in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, as revised in 2000. Authors should submit a statement from their ethics committee or institutional review board indicating the approval of the research.

All relevant national and international guidelines must be followed while conducting research on animals and submitting the article about such studies. Following the recommendations of the Weatherall report on "The use of non-human primates in research," the authors are specifically required to include details of animal welfare and steps taken to ameliorate suffering in all work involving non-human primates.

• 5.3.3. Declaration of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in writing the manuscript

When authors use generative AI or and AI-assisted method in preparing the manuscript, they should only use these AI technologies to check grammar and spelling and improve the readability of the language in the manuscript. This journal will not encourage the author to use AI to prepare any section of the manuscript. If any section is prepared by AI, the author should include a statement to disclose their use of AI in manuscript preparation, since the current policy in the use AI for manuscript preparation is not very well defined by the public, the authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the manuscript that was prepared by AI.

• 5.3.4. Implication of Author Submission

Submission of a manuscript to RNA and Nanomedicine implies that the content in the manuscript has not been published previously. Exceptions are abstracts in conferences, and academic thesis due to degree requirements. The authors should clearly declare that the manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere except if it is rejected by this journal. If the manuscript is accepted, the major content and subject or the similar result(s) of this manuscript will not be published elsewhere in any language, or any electronic methods without the prior written consent of this RNA and Nanomedicine’s copyright holder. Posting of same manuscript on authors’ institutional website prior to publication by RNA and Nanomedicine also falls under this restriction and should be avoided. If any such practice comes under the notice of the journals’ editorial team the article may be rejected at once due to authors’ unethical behavior while notifying the author about this final editorial decision.

• 5.3.5. Suggesting reviewers

You might suggest names and institutional e-mail addresses of up to five potential reviewers. But you should avoid the conflict of interest.

You should not suggest reviewers from the group of your friends, previous co-authors, or collaborators during the last three years. The journal editorial office will not invite reviewers who have a potential conflict of interest with any author. You should not include any of the members of the RNA and Nanomedicine editorial board.

• 5.3.6. Protecting Individual Data/Maintaining Confidentiality

The Editor in Chief/editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information present in a submitted manuscript to anyone else other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Each individual should obey the laws related to this in their own working space. This is necessary to protect the personal information gathered during research or professional interactions.  In cases where there is a likelihood of persons being recognized by themselves/other readers (e.g., in case studies/photographic illustrations) a written, clearly informed consent for publication should be gathered from these individuals and presented to the editors. Please note that the consent to take part in a research study or to undergo a treatment should not be considered the same as consent to publish the personal details/images. Neoplasia Research firmly commits to follow its policy on publishing individual data (e.g., identifiable personal details or images) and explains this clearly to authors.

Participants of the research studies have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without their informed consent. Identifying information should not be published unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. A patient who is identifiable must be shown the manuscript to be published. In case of clinical studies, case reports or patient data presentation it is mandatory that the identifying details of patients should be omitted if they are not essential. If identifying details are required to be published, the patients must be shown the manuscript before publication, in case of altered details with the purpose of protecting patients’ identity, authors should provide assurances that the alterations do not change the results or conclusions of this paper and Editors should be informed. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be clearly mentioned in the manuscript.

6. Plagiarism Policy:

“Copying of text, completely or partially, from other published material or authors’ own previously published work without proper acknowledgment; and misquoting original ideas, authorship, text or results is considered as Plagiarism.”

There is no space for any form of plagiarized material in Neoplasia Research journals.

It is noteworthy that all articles submitted to Neoplasia Research journals are subjected to plagiarism check (copying of any material) on submission. Professionally recognized software is used to evaluate plagiarism in all submissions. Our authors are instructed to assure the journals’ editors about following this policy by providing proper citation of any directly quoted material whether in text form, images, data, or ideas. Articles may be highly prone to major revisions or even rejection if their amount of similarity index to other articles in our database is found greater than the allowed limits (any submitted/accepted manuscript should not have a similarity of more than 18%). We make sure to check all articles against plagiarism just after their submission however, in rare cases of detection of plagiarism after publication of the article, Neoplasia Research reserves the right to retract the article from its website simultaneously issuing a note of retraction at the website along with the reason and informing the authors’ institutions about their decision to do so.

7. Disclosure and Conflicts:

• 7.1. Disclosure of Financial Support

All authors should disclose any financial funding provided by the institutional or government authorities for the research project reported in the article. If funding sponsors had any role in the design of the research; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data produced/analyzed in the study; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results it must be clearly declared in this section.

• 7.2. Conflict of Interest

“A competing interest/conflict of interest is something that actually interferes with or may be seen as an interfering factor in the presentation, peer review, editorial handling, or publication of a submitted article. Competing Interest may be present in the form of financial, nonfinancial, professional, or personal perspectives.”

A conflict of interest may arise when the author or author’s institution may have a financial, non-financial, and personal or any other association with the publisher or the people involved in the publishing process, which may influence integrity of the author’s work. Authors should declare any conflict of interest at the time of submission of manuscript or at the earliest possible stage after its recognition.

The conflicts should be included at the end of the manuscript, before the references, under the heading of “Conflict of Interest”. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, and allowances, paid expert testimony, past and present affiliations, or other funding.

If any conflict of interest is suspected, it should be reported to the Neoplasia Research or Editor.
The mention of such interests does not make the manuscripts unethical, but they should be acknowledged. In case of no conflict, the authors are required to include this in their manuscripts as well, clearly stating “The authors declare no conflict of interest”.

For resolving issues regarding conflicts of interests Neoplasia Research editors are instructed to work in line with:

https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/u7140/Discussion_document__on_handling_competing_interests.pdf

To promote transparency without hindering publication schedule Neoplasia Research execute every possible step to be vigilant about potential conflicts of interest, however, guaranteeing that our Editors are aware of all competing interests of reviewers is beyond truthfulness. Therefore, we appeal our reviewers to report to the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they note any potential competing interest during the course of a manuscript review process. Moreover, reviewers’ own conflict of interest with the content or authors of the manuscript should also be conveyed to the editors. If the assigned editor will find it appropriate to remove the reviewer, weighing the type and extent of the conflict, other reviewers will be contacted for the review.