Guide for Reviewers

Peer review is an effective means and objective method to ensure academic quality. Reviewers play a crucial role in the publication practice of the journal. All submitted manuscripts must undergo the following peer review procedure.

1 Peer Review Method

The journal adopts a "double-blind" review process, ensuring that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous during and after the review process, with their identities kept confidential.

2 Reviewer Selection

Whenever possible, the journal matches reviewers with papers based on their specific expertise. The journal's reviewer database is continuously updated. Authors are welcome to recommend reviewers; however, recommended reviewers will not be assigned to review the manuscripts of the recommenders but will instead be used to expand the reviewer database.

3 Reviewer Comments

Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

Whether the research ideas and methods (including data) are original.

Whether the research methods are sound.

Whether the research results are clear and support the conclusions.

Whether relevant literature is appropriately and comprehensively cited.

Whether the study adheres to scientific ethics, with particular regard to plagiarism.

Whether the study makes a novel and significant contribution to the field.

Language editing is not part of the peer review process; however, reviewers are encouraged to provide suggestions on language and style. In the final stage of review, the managing editor will check the language and style and may request revisions from the authors or make direct edits to the manuscript.

4 Review Time

Each article will be reviewed by at least two reviewers, and the time required for review depends on the reviewers' response time. The first round of review typically takes two weeks, with a maximum of three months. If there are conflicting opinions among reviewers or if a reviewer fails to provide timely feedback, an additional expert will be invited to review the manuscript. The editor will process the reviewers' revision comments and forward them to the authors, along with detailed feedback on the manuscript.

5 Final Review

The decision to publish a manuscript is made through a review by the editorial board, with final approval by the editor-in-chief. The editorial department handles manuscripts in strict accordance with the professional ethical guidelines for editors of scientific journals. The final decision, whether to accept or reject the submission, will be communicated to the authors along with the reviewers' recommendations.

6 Special Issues and Columns

Manuscripts submitted for special issues and columns undergo the same peer review process as regular submissions. They are reviewed by the editorial board, and the final decision on acceptance is made by the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief assumes full responsibility for all contents in the journal, including special issues and columns.

7 Appealing Against Peer Review Comments

If authors disagree with the reviewers' comments, they may submit an appeal. Authors are required to prepare a written appeal, specifying the manuscript number, and email it to us. The appeal must provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the appeal, including a comprehensive and reasonable response to the reviewers' comments. The editorial department will decide whether to accept the appeal based on the specific circumstances.

8 Post-Publication Discussion

After a paper is published, the journal welcomes readers to engage in discussions regarding the academic contributions of the paper. Additionally, readers are also encouraged to monitor academic misconduct and actively report relevant feedback to the journal, fostering a sound academic environment. Readers may submit their comments to the journal's email address. The editorial department will process them as quickly as possible and provide feedback as appropriate.