Peer Review Policy

Policy Overview

To ensure the academic rigor, originality, and high quality of research findings published in the journals under our press, all submitted research articles, reviews, and most other article types must undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review process. Our press primarily adopts the single-blind peer review model (where reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors remain anonymous to reviewers). Certain specific journals may employ a double-blind peer review model (where both parties' identities are concealed until publication), as detailed in the respective journal's guidelines.

The core objective is to select manuscripts demonstrating significant academic value, innovation, and scientific reliability through independent expert assessment, while providing authors with constructive feedback for improvement.

Peer Review Process Steps

The entire review process follows a standardized procedure, as outlined below:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Office Check

Upon submission, the Editorial Office conducts an initial screening, which includes:

• Format and Scope: Verifying that the manuscript complies with the journal's formatting requirements, academic standards, and scope.
• Originality Check: Screening for academic misconduct using professional anti-plagiarism software, with a defined similarity threshold (e.g., typically not exceeding 25%).
• Completeness: Confirming that all necessary materials (such as figures, tables, data, etc.) are complete.

Manuscripts failing the initial check will be returned or rejected directly.

Step 2: Assessment by Academic Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial check are assigned to an Academic Editor (typically the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Editorial Board member) in the relevant field. The Academic Editor assesses the manuscript's overall academic potential, novelty, and alignment with the journal's aims, and decides whether to proceed with peer review. Should the Academic Editor have any potential conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript, handling will be transferred to another editor without conflicts.

Step 3: Peer Review Execution

• The Academic Editor is responsible for inviting at least two independent experts in the field to review the manuscript.
• Review Criteria: Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate the manuscript based on the following aspects:
  • Novelty and Academic Significance: Whether the study provides new knowledge or insights.
  • Methodology and Scientific Rigor: The appropriateness of the experimental design, the validity and sufficiency of the data, and the soundness of the analysis.
  • Results and Conclusions: Whether the conclusions are fully supported by the data.
  • Presentation and Structure: The clarity of the narrative, logical coherence, and adherence to language standards.

Step 4: Editorial Decision and Author Communication

The Academic Editor synthesizes all reviewer comments to reach a final decision, which is communicated to the corresponding author via the submission system. Decision types include:

• Acceptance without Revision:The manuscript is accepted for publication as is (rare).
• Acceptance after Minor Revisions: Requires minor, non-critical revisions.
• Reconsideration after Major Revisions: Requires significant or substantial revisions. The revised manuscript will typically be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Rejection: The manuscript has fundamental flaws and does not meet the journal's publication standards.

Step 5: Revision and Re-review

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version within the stipulated timeframe, accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter addressing all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers. All changes made in the manuscript should be clearly highlighted. The revised manuscript and responses will be assessed by the Academic Editor and, if necessary, the original reviewers until it meets the acceptance criteria.