Review Process

1. Within two weeks of receiving a manuscript (based on the date the review fee is recorded), the editor will conduct an initial review. This review assesses:

(1) Whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal;

(2) Whether the manuscript follows the required formatting guidelines, including the abstracts, keywords, article structure, and reference style;

(3) The overall quality of the manuscript and whether it should be sent for peer review.

2. The manuscript is then reviewed by at least two experts (either Editorial Board members or invited experts) in the relevant field. Interdisciplinary manuscripts are sent to experts in the respective disciplines for review. A double-blind review process is used, where reviewers and authors remain anonymous, to ensure objectivity and fairness. In this stage, reviewers assess:

(1) The scientific merit of the manuscript (soundness of study design, completeness of data, correctness of statistical analyses, and validity of conclusions), as well as its practicality and originality;

(2) The appropriateness and consistency of technical terminology;

(3) Whether the discussion section provides a thorough and meaningful interpretation of the study results;

(4) The academic value of the manuscript and provide comments and recommendations for its disposition.

3. After peer review, a final review will be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or in an editorial meeting. For manuscripts passing the final review, the editorial office will communicate the reviewers' comments to the authors through the submission system and via email. Upon receiving the notification, authors must revise the manuscript carefully according to the comments, prepare a point-by-point response to the comments, and submit the revised manuscript within the specified time.

4. A final decision regarding acceptance of the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief. The entire review process typically takes approximately two months.

Review for In-house Submissions

Submissions from the journal's editors, Editorial Board members, and reviewers are also subject to the above review process. The review will be conducted independently of the submitting editor/Editorial Board member/reviewer, and their research groups. In addition, editors, Editorial Board members, and reviewers may not participate in the review of manuscripts written by themselves, their families, colleagues, or other authors with whom they have a conflict of interest.

Review for Special Issue Manuscripts

The review process described above also applies to submissions for special issues. Manuscripts submitted for special issues undergo the same review process as other manuscripts, with the final decision on acceptance made by the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the entire content of this journal.

For certain special issues, the editorial office may invite leading experts in the research areas to serve as guest editors. Their role is to assist the editorial office in soliciting submissions, organizing the review of manuscripts, etc. The work of guest editors is supervised by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief to ensure the fairness and integrity of manuscript review.

Reviewer Selection Policy

§ Reviewers are selected through a comprehensive evaluation based on the journal's dynamic reviewer database, the manuscript's subject terms (or primary keywords), references, and literature search platforms.

§ The academic qualification of reviewers is primarily assessed through their publications in authoritative journals in China and abroad, as well as their academic impact.

§ Whether experts have sufficient time and capacity to undertake the review is an important consideration for the editorial office when selecting reviewers.

§ The editorial office evaluates the reliability of reviewers based on their review attitude, thoroughness, and ability to return comments within the required timeframe.

§ Experts whose familiarity with the manuscript content may allow them to infer the identity of the authors will be excluded from the pool of potential reviewers.

§ The editorial office avoids selecting reviewers who may have conflicts of interest with the authors. Reviewers must not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and must not have close personal or academic relationships with them (e.g., reviewer–author pairs should not have a teacher–student relationship or share the same advisor). The editorial office also gives full consideration to author requests and will avoid specific reviewers if such requests are deemed reasonable.