Peer Review Process

Double blind peer review

This Journal adopts the double blind peer review model, which means that the identities of reviewers and authors are hidden from each other throughout the review process. Before the peer review process, authors must promise that the new submission will not be revealed the information of authors to reviewers directly or indirectly.

Preparation list:

  1. Title page

The title page will be separate from the main text, and it will not be sent to the reviewers throughout the peer review process. Title page should include the key identities of authors:

  • The title of new manuscript
  • All authors’ name and affiliations
  • The address of all authors
  • Conflict of Interest statement
  • Acknowledgement
  • Funding
  1. The main text

Please ensure that you have remove all the identities from the text, and use “the name” instead of “I/we”.

  1. Cover letter

Cover letter describes the background and significance of the research, as well as the potential Conflict of Interests involved, avoided reviewers, the rigor and the ethical commitment of the research. It should sign all the names of authors.

Peer review process

Authors submit a manuscript to the Journal, and it will undergo the rigorous double blind peer review process. Reviewers are requested to provide objective, constructive comments to ensure the scientific quality of all the publications in the Journal.

  • Pre-check

The new submission will be checked by the in-house editor for completeness check, and then a similarity report will be provided to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). Then the EiC evaluates the scope and scientificity of the manuscript. If the scope matches the Journal with scientific value, the manuscript will be assigned to the Associate Editor for further peer review process.

  • Peer review

The Associate Editor will assign the manuscript to at least 2 reviewers in this research field once the manuscript passes the pre-check section. The reviewers should return the review comments with recommended decision during 7 workdays since requested day. The Associate Editor will give a recommended decision according to the reviewers’ suggestions to the EiC. The EiC will make the final decision, and in-house editor will inform the authors. Editors or staff will never make any decision during all the peer review process.

Review decision:

Accept: the manuscript will be passed to the editing section including copyediting, proofediting section without revised.

Accept with minor revision: the manuscript will be modified with minor revision by authors during 7 workdays, and then be accepted once the EiC agree it. Then, it will be passed to the editing section including copyediting, proofediting section. It will not undergo the second round peer review.

Major revision: the manuscript should be modified with major revision during 20 workdays. It will be assigned to the same reviewer or new reviewers for further review until a new review decision.

Rejection: if the manuscript is rejected, the authors are welcome to resubmit a new manuscript and a new peer review will be undergone.

Authors have the right to appeal the reject decision to within one month. A detailed report is necessary with point-to-point explanation. An academic group will be organized to have an academic debate, and the final decision will be validated to be the final result by EiC without further appeal.