Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
This journal rigorously implements a single-blind peer review system involving editorial initial review, re-review by the Managing Editor, expert peer review, and final approval by the Editor-in-Chief. Details are as follows:
 
I. Review Rules
(1) Each manuscript is reviewed by at least 2 independent experts.
(2) Reviewers must not share institutional affiliation with authors, nor have mentor-student relationships, academic lineage ties, or prior collaborative relationships.
(3) Single-blind review (reviewer identities remain confidential).
(4) Interdisciplinary manuscripts are evaluated by specialists in relevant fields.
(5) Authors may request exclusion of specific reviewers or institutions.
 
II. Review Process
(1) Initial Screening: Editors utilize Wanfang Data Similarity Check and Academic Misconduct Literature Check (AMLC) to screen for plagiarism and assess scope suitability.
(2) Peer Review: After initial review by the assigned editor and re-review by the Managing Editor, qualified manuscripts undergo rigorous peer review by at least 2 domain experts to evaluate scientific quality.
(3) Final Decision: Revised manuscripts that successfully pass peer review are subject to final acceptance determination by the Editor-in-Chief.
III. Reviewer Selection Criteria
 
(1) Potential reviewers are sourced from our dynamic reviewer database, references cited in submissions or major academic literature platforms.
(2) Selected based on subject relevance through manuscript keywords and themes.
(3) Expertise evaluated via publications in authoritative journals and scholarly impact.
(4) Expert credit, including their serious attitude towards reviewing and their ability to promptly return review comments within the review cycle.
(5) We will carefully consider whether experts have enough time and energy to review the paper. For example, in the academic ecosystem in China, we rarely consider inviting experts with administrative positions to review articles.
(6) Younger scholars are prioritized within eligible candidates.
 
IV. Decision Protocol
(1) Reviewer recommendations fall into four categories:
  •  The manuscript can be published
  •  Accept with minor revisions
  •  Re-review after major revisions
  •  Reject
(2) We encourage academic debate for manuscripts with objections to the review comments. The editorial department attaches great importance to the objectivity and impartiality of the review comments, ensuring that the evaluation of the academic level of the reviewed paper is not affected by factors such as religion, political views, gender, and geography.
0