This journal strictly complies with core publishing guidelines formulated by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). We adopt a double-blind peer review system throughout the whole editorial procedure, where neither authors nor referees can access each other’s personal identity information, so as to guarantee impartial academic evaluation and eliminate subjective bias.
After manuscript submission, the editorial office conducts systematic pre-checks. Inspection items include journal subject scope matching, document formatting standards, similarity detection results, research ethical qualifications, and the integrity of literature framework.
Manuscripts deviating from journal positioning, presenting severe plagiarism issues, or lacking basic academic value will receive an immediate desk rejection with detailed explanatory remarks. Qualified papers will be assigned to a specialist associate editor for subsequent external review arrangements.
The handling editor invites at least two academic experts with targeted disciplinary expertise to carry out peer evaluation. Anyone sharing academic cooperation, institutional affiliation or financial connections with author groups will be excluded from the review panel.
Reviewers comprehensively assess manuscripts based on standardized dimensions: academic originality, rationality of research methodology, validity of experimental data, depth of literature discussion, logical coherence and ethical compliance.
Each referee submits a formal written reviewer report alongside one standard editorial recommendation:
1. Accept (Accept without revision)
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
The associate editor consolidates all reviewer comments, synthesizes divergent evaluation opinions, and submits comprehensive suggestions to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief delivers the final editorial result and sends the full review reports to corresponding authors.
For revision requests, authors are required to submit a point-by-point response letter alongside revised manuscripts. Revised contents will be returned to original reviewers for secondary verification, especially for manuscripts that were given a major revision decision.
Once revised contents satisfy all academic requirements, the manuscript receives formal acceptance, completes DOI allocation, proofreading, typesetting, and subsequent online publication procedures.
1. Authors may propose a reasonable list of excluded reviewers during submission, and the editorial team will properly consider valid avoidance applications.
2. All review records, comment documents and decision archives will be preserved systematically for long-term audit management.
3. Authors are eligible to submit formal appeal applications to the editorial department if they have reasonable objections to final rejection decisions.
