For manuscripts that pass the preliminary review, this journal adopts single-blind peer review, under which reviewers can see the authors’ identities while authors cannot access the reviewers’ identities. The peer--review process shall comply with the following working specifications.
The Editorial Department shall abide by the specifications below when arranging peer review for submitted manuscripts:
1. Selected peer-review experts shall have research fields identical or similar to that of the manuscript under review, and shall have no conflicts of interest with the manuscript authors.
2. Reviewers recommended by the authors themselves shall generally not be appointed as evaluators for their own manuscripts.
3. Each submitted manuscript is normally reviewed by two experts who provide their comments. Where substantial discrepancies exist between the two experts’ review conclusions, a third expert will be invited for review.
4. The review cycle shall generally be kept within one month.
Review experts of this journal evaluate manuscripts in terms of innovation, practicality, scientific soundness and significance, covering the following items: ① whether the manuscript contains novel and significant content; ② whether experiments are described clearly and completely; ③ whether arguments and supporting evidence are rigorous and sufficient; ④ whether discussions and conclusions are reasonable; ⑤ whether references are cited appropriately and relevantly; ⑥ whether language expression and figures/tables are properly used; ⑦ whether ethical requirements are satisfied.
To communicate effectively with editors and reviewers and uphold their academic viewpoints, authors shall observe the following points when addressing review comments: ① When revising the manuscript, authors shall respond to reviewers’ comments item-by-item and mark revised contents. ② Overly brief revised manuscripts and response letters may delay manuscript processing and affect review outcomes, which may result in further revision or rejection. ③ Authors may disagree with review outcomes, provided that they state their reasons to the Editorial Department and reviewers.
