Peer review policy

The editorial department strictly follows a system of three-stage review and three-stage proofreading. All manuscripts are cross-checked by the responsible editor and other editors, reviewed by the executive editor, reviewed by external experts and scholars, and proofread by the authors themselves, and go through more than several processes to avoid errors.

First step: initial review by the editorial department

After receiving the manuscript, the editorial department first conducts an initial review, including:

(1) Verifying whether the manuscript belongs to the requirements of this journal for accepting manuscripts and whether the repetition rate of the manuscript is within the requirements of the journal;

(2) Verifying whether the various elements constituting the manuscript are complete, whether the charts meet the requirements, and whether the format is standardized;

(3) How is the academic and scientific nature of the manuscript, and determine whether to send it for external review.

The initial review results from the editorial department generally fall into three categories:

(1) Send for external review

    After the initial review, manuscripts considered to have publishing value are sent to two peer experts for parallel review.

(2) Return for supplementation or modification

    If the content description of the manuscript is not complete enough, the repetition rate or language of the article does not pass, the author is informed of the places where the manuscript needs to be supplemented or modified. After the modification is completed, the manuscript returns to the editorial department, and re-enters the initial review stage.

(3) Rejection

    If the editor considers that the manuscript does not meet the category or submission requirements of the journal, it will not be sent for external review, and the manuscript will be directly returned.

The second step: peer review

The main purpose of peer review is to improve the academic level of the submitted manuscript.

(1) Form of peer review: two peer experts, parallel and double-blind review.

(2) Selection of reviewers

    The reviewers of this journal are all well-known experts and scholars in this field, recommended and invited by the editorial board to become reviewers. Authors can also recommend themselves as reviewers, which will be approved by the editorial board.

(3) Manuscript review criteria

    Review experts mainly give professional judgments on the manuscript based on the following review criteria:

    ·Whether the content of the manuscript is innovative;

    ·The scientific and engineering significance of the topic selection, how original, forward-looking, and practical the article is;

    ·Whether there are major defects in the manuscript, how accurate and reliable the theoretical derivation, concepts, data, and charts are, and whether they support the research content and conclusions of the manuscript;

    ·How is the integrity and readability of the manuscript, how reasonable, accurate, and complete the structure is, and how clear the logic is; whether a clear exposition is given on the research problem, and how valid and effective the conclusion of the article is.

(4) Results of peer review

    Each manuscript is requested by at least two peer review experts to give professional opinions based on the review criteria, and the responsible editor integrates the opinions of the two review experts to make the following decisions:

    ·Submit to the executive editor for re-review;

    ·Revisions (two types):

        First type: The manuscript needs minor revisions, and after the minor revisions, it is submitted for re-review;

        Second type: The manuscript needs major revisions. When the author returns the revised manuscript, it needs to reply to the review comments one by one. The responsible editor determines whether to enter the re-review stage or return to the external review stage for re-review based on the revised manuscript and the reply to the review comments.

    ·Rejection: If both peer reviewers give a rejection treatment, then a rejection treatment will be carried out, along with the review comments.

The third step: re-review

The executive editor conducts a re-review based on the initial review of the editorial department and the results of peer review, and gives a re-review opinion, and makes the following decisions:

(1) Submit to the editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief for final review;

(2) Revisions:

(3) Rejection: Combined with the results of peer review, a rejection treatment is given, and a rejection comment is attached.

The fourth step: final review

The editor-in-chief or deputy editor-in-chief makes a final processing decision based on the initial review of the editorial department, the results of peer review, and the re-review opinions, determining whether to accept and suggesting the publication time.

Selection of reviewers

At present, reviewers are divided into two categories: in-house reviewers of the editorial department and external reviewers. In-house reviewers are served by the editorial board and young editorial board members of this journal, and external reviewers are composed of experts, scholars, and researchers in this field at home and abroad.

Submission by editorial board members and editors

Submission by editorial board members and editors must also comply with all review and editing procedures of the journal. Editorial board members and editors must not participate in the review work, editing work, and acceptance decisions of papers written by themselves, their family members, and colleagues. Peer review must be conducted independently of the relevant authors, editors, and their research groups.

Editorial policy

Editorial modifications: In accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Copyright Law", this journal can make textual modifications and deletions to the manuscripts, and for modifications involving the original intention, the author is requested to consider.

Modification time limit: The review results of manuscripts are generally notified to the authors within 1 to 2 months. For individual manuscripts, the review time may be longer. If the review results have not been received after more than 2 months, the author can contact the editorial department and submit elsewhere by himself.

Requirements for originality of manuscripts

Manuscript plagiarism check: At the initial review stage, iThenticate will be used for plagiarism check, and the repetition rate needs to be within 20%.

Author attribution: Author attribution is only limited to those who have made important contributions to proposing research topics, designing research schemes, and conducting processing and interpretation of research work; those who have made important contributions should be attributed. Other personnel involved in the research work should be listed in the acknowledgments.

Citation of references: For references that are of important significance to the article, they need to be listed in the reference section.