Peer Review, Editorial Board, and Complaints Policy

1. Peer Review Policy

Review Type: This journal employs a double-blind peer review system. Under this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. All submitted manuscripts are anonymized by removing author names, affiliations, and funding information before being sent for review.

Review Process (Three-Tier Review System):

The journal implements a three-tier review system as follows:

• Tier 1 (Initial Editorial Review): The handling editor evaluates the manuscript for its topic, scholarly quality, and basic formatting. Manuscripts that meet the journal's requirements proceed to the next stage; those that do not are rejected.
• Tier 2 (Expert Peer Review): Manuscripts that pass the initial review are sent to at least two independent experts in the relevant field for double-blind peer review. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's novelty, scholarly quality, methodological rigor, and other specific content, providing detailed feedback.
• Tier 3 (Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Final Decision): The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision (accept as is, accept with minor revisions, require major revisions, or reject) based on the reviewers' recommendations. For manuscripts with disputed reviews, the matter is referred to the Editorial Board for collective discussion and a final decision.

Special Issues and Supplements: Submissions to special issues or supplements undergo the same three-tier review and editorial process as regular submissions. The final acceptance decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. When organizing a special issue, the journal may invite a distinguished expert in the field to serve as a Guest Editor, whose responsibilities include proposing the theme, soliciting manuscripts, and organizing peer review. The Guest Editor's work is supervised by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure fairness.

Submissions by Editorial Board Members/Editors/Guest Editors: Manuscripts authored by Editorial Board members, editors, or Guest Editors must follow the same review and editorial procedures as all other submissions. Peer review must be conducted independently of the author and their research group. The relevant individual must recuse themselves from all handling and decision-making processes where a conflict of interest may arise.

Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on originality and novelty, scientific rigor and methodological soundness, clarity and quality of presentation, relevance to the journal's scope, appropriateness and completeness of references, and ethical compliance.

Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents; conduct reviews objectively; immediately notify the editor if unable to review; disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

Peer Review Timeline: The journal strives to provide an initial editorial decision within 4 to 6 weeks. Reviewers are typically given 2 to 3 weeks.

2. Editorial Board and Governance Policy

Editorial Board Composition: The Editorial Board consists of the Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Editorial Board Members.

Editorial Independence: The Editor-in-Chief has full editorial independence. Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, free from commercial influence or institutional pressure.

Roles and Responsibilities:

• Editor-in-Chief: Oversees the entire editorial process, makes final decisions, ensures ethical compliance.
• Co-Editors-in-Chief: Assist the Editor-in-Chief in handling manuscripts and managing peer review.
• Associate Editors: Handle manuscripts within their expertise, manage peer review, and make recommendations.
• Editorial Board Members: Advise on journal strategy, promote the journal, contribute to special issues, and provide peer review.

Term of Service: Editorial Board members serve renewable terms of three years.

Conflict of Interest Management: Editorial Board members must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript for which they have a conflict of interest.

Transparency: The complete list of Editorial Board members is publicly available on the journal's website.

3. Complaints, Suggestions, and Appeals Policy

Scope:

• Complaints: May relate to editorial processing issues, editor or reviewer conduct issues, publication ethics issues, or editorial board governance issues.
• Suggestions: May be offered regarding journal policies and process improvements, editorial board member nominations, or special issue proposals.
• Appeals: Applicable when an author believes an editorial decision contains factual or procedural errors. Appeals must be based on specific, verifiable issues.

Submission Method: All complaints, suggestions, and appeals must be submitted in writing to pt@tongji.edu.cn. Submissions should include manuscript ID (if applicable), clear statement of the issue and supporting arguments, and any relevant correspondence or evidence.

Handling Process:

• Acknowledgment within 7 business days
• Reviewed by the Executive Editor or a designated editorial board member
• External experts may be consulted if necessary
• Final decision typically within 30 business days

Confidentiality: All complaints, suggestions, and appeals are handled under strict confidentiality.

Appeal Handling: Appeals will be re-reviewed by an independent member of the editorial board not involved in the original decision.

Handling of Malicious Complaints: The journal reserves the right not to process complaints that are clearly lacking factual basis or are malicious.

Record Retention: All records will be retained for at least 5 years.