Peer Review Process

This journal implements a “three-review system,” namely a working system of initial editorial review, expert external review (peer review), and final review by the chief editor. Peer review adopts a “double-blind system” to ensure the academic quality of articles. The specific manuscript processing is as follows:

I. Review Process

1.Upon receipt of the manuscript, the editorial office assigns a unique number and distributes it to the corresponding editor based on its academic discipline or professional direction.

2.The editor provides initial revision suggestions or rejects the manuscript based on its content and quality.

3.The editor invites at least two experts for peer review, who comprehensively evaluate the paper’s innovativeness, academic level, rigor, etc. If peer review opinions differ, the editor will, according to specific feedback and journal guidelines, either reject the manuscript or request the author to revise it before inviting a third expert or the original reviewer for re-evaluation. If both experts recommend rejection, the manuscript will be directly rejected.

4.The chief editor regularly reviews manuscripts, making the final acceptance decision by integrating external reviewers’ opinions and the author’s revisions.

II. Review Outcomes

1.Accept with Revisions: Both reviewers agree that the manuscript can be published after revisions.

2.Revise and Resubmit for Review: The editor, considering reviewers’ opinions and journal standards, deems major or critical revisions necessary, and the revised manuscript will undergo re-evaluation. If the revisions fail to meet requirements, the manuscript may be rejected.

3.Revise and Resubmit: The article shows potential but contains multiple issues, requiring comprehensive revisions by the author, including methods, result presentation, data and literature supplementation, and language polishing. After revision, the manuscript will be re-reviewed.

4. Reject: The editor decides to reject the manuscript based on reviewers’ opinions and journal guidelines.

本刊实行“三审制”，即编辑初审、专家外审（同行评议）、主编终审的工作制度。同行评议采取“双盲制”，以保证文章的学术质量。稿件处理流程具体如下：

一、审稿过程

1.编辑部收到稿件后，对稿件进行编号，并根据稿件的学科或专业方向分配给相应的编辑。

2.编辑根据文章内容与质量提出初修意见或作退稿处理。

3.编辑将提请至少2位专家对论文进行同行评议，专家针对论文的创新性、学术水平、严谨性等进行综合评价。如果同行评议意见不一致，编辑将根据具体意见和本刊规范，或作退稿处理，或待作者修回后提请第三位专家或原审稿专家复审。如果两位专家均建议“退稿”，则直接作退稿处理。

4.主编定期对稿件进行审核，主要结合外审专家的意见和作者修改的情况最终决定是否录用。

二、审理结果

1. 修改后发表：两位审稿专家意见一致，均为修改后发表。

2. 修改后再审：编辑结合审稿专家的意见及本刊规范，比较大的修改或一些关键的修改需要复审；修改后的论文如未达到要求，可能作退稿处理。

3. 修改后重投：文章有一定的潜力，但存在较多的问题，需作者通篇修改，包括方法、结果呈现、数据和文献补充，以及文字润色等，修改完成后需复审。

4. 退稿：编辑根据审稿人的意见及本刊规范作退稿决定。