Referee Instructions

Criteria for Publication

Scope: The manuscript must fall within the scope of the journal.
Research Question: The study must present a clear and well-defined research question.
Methodology: The research methods must be reliable and appropriate, and the conclusions must be credible, regardless of the paper's contribution to the literature or practical significance.
Clarity of English: The manuscript must be clearly written in English.
Preprints: We do not consider preprints a barrier to publication in this journal.

Reviewers and editors should evaluate the papers solely based on the above criteria. Decisions regarding the importance, significance, or impact of the paper should not influence your recommendation; the research community will assess these aspects post-publication. If a manuscript has been sent for peer review, it indicates that the editors believe it is within the journal's scope.

Review Process

Peer review is a critical part of the research process. Fundamentally, we aim for the review process to be a collaborative effort between authors and reviewers, ensuring the publication of rigorous research findings. For content types that require peer review, manuscripts deemed to have academic value after initial assessment will be sent for formal review. This journal employs a double-blind review process, concealing the identities of both authors and reviewers. Click here for a full explanation of the review process.

Reviewers are asked to recommend specific actions (i.e., accept, revise, or reject). Therefore, the most useful reports will provide the information on which to base this decision. Explaining the reasons for both supporting and opposing publication is often helpful. After considering the reviewer reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted without any further modifications.
Accept in Principle: The manuscript is accepted pending some final (usually editorial) adjustments to prepare the paper for publication.
Revise: The author is asked to revise the manuscript to address specific issues, which may involve additional work.
Reject: The manuscript is rejected.

We may seek further advice from reviewers, especially in cases where there is a disagreement among reviewers or if the author feels that their work has been misunderstood on factual grounds. We highly value constructive criticism from reviewers, particularly technical criticisms. If one reviewer opposes publication, we may consult with other reviewers to determine if an excessively critical standard was applied. Sometimes, we might invite new reviewers to resolve disputes or provide additional perspectives.

Note to Reviewers: Your thorough and constructive feedback is essential to maintaining the integrity and quality of our journal. We appreciate your time and effort in contributing to the peer review process.

Reviewer and Editor Ethical Guidelines

Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the review process and the manuscripts under review as strictly confidential. Reviewers should not share, discuss, or disclose any details of the manuscript or review process with anyone outside the editorial team.

Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could bias their review. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the review invitation and inform the editor.

Anonymity: This journal follows a double-blind review process. Reviewers should ensure that their comments and attached files do not reveal their identity. The editorial team will ensure that the reviewers' identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript. Criticism should be respectful, professional, and focused on the content of the manuscript rather than the authors.

Timeliness: Timely reviews are essential to the efficient functioning of the peer review process. Reviewers should aim to complete their reviews within the specified timeframe. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the editor as soon as possible.

Reviewing Revised Manuscripts: If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted, reviewers may be asked to review the revised version. In such cases, reviewers should evaluate whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the initial review.

Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should be aware of ethical issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, and ethical treatment of research subjects. If reviewers suspect any ethical issues, they should notify the editor immediately.

Reviewer Recognition: We acknowledge the vital role reviewers play in the academic publishing process. To show our appreciation, reviewers' contributions may be recognized through acknowledgment in the journal and potential inclusion in reviewer reward programs.

Reviewer and Guest Editor Incentive Program

As part of encouraging engagement and enhancing the scholarly dialogue, particularly insightful or constructive comments provided by reviewers may be considered for publication as Correspondence articles. These articles can accompany the original article in the same issue or the subsequent issue.

Correspondence articles can be proposed by the authors themselves or invited by the editors. The editorial team will review these submissions to ensure they meet the journal's quality and relevance standards. These submissions typically do not undergo peer review. For specific requirements, please refer to the Correspondence guidelines.

Authors can submit their correspondence by emailing the Managing Editor, Dianshi Moses Li at dianshi2000@126.com.