Thu, Nov 12, 2026
[Archive]
Editorial and Peer Review Policies
| Last update: 2026/11/9 |
Editorial and Peer Review Policies
1. Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review procedure to ensure an impartial and rigorous assessment of their scientific merit. Following an initial editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief designates an Editorial Board member to coordinate the evaluation. Each manuscript is subsequently assessed by at least two external specialists and one internal reviewer, selected according to their academic qualifications and subject expertise.
Before accepting an invitation, prospective reviewers are provided with the manuscript abstract and are asked to confirm that their expertise is appropriate, no potential conflict of interest exists, and they can complete the evaluation within the required timeframe. Reviewers are generally expected to submit their assessments within two weeks of accepting the invitation.
2. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality
All individuals involved in the editorial and peer review process must adhere to the journal's publication ethics requirements and the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer reviewers.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and notify the editorial office if they identify possible research misconduct or ethical concerns. Submitted manuscripts must not be shared, reproduced, or used for purposes unrelated to the review process. Strict confidentiality must be maintained throughout the evaluation, and the identities and privacy of all participants must be protected.
3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision
After receiving the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates their recommendations and provides an editorial assessment to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers may recommend one of three outcomes: Acceptance, indicating that the manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revisions; Revision Required, indicating that the manuscript may be reconsidered after the authors address the reviewers' concerns and make the necessary modifications; or Rejection, indicating that the manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements, with the reasons clearly documented. The Editor-in-Chief retains full responsibility for the final publication decision, taking into consideration the scientific merit of the manuscript, the reviewers' evaluations, and the handling editor's recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief is also responsible for maintaining the journal's academic standards and overseeing the appointment of Guest Editors, approval of special issues, and selection of new Editorial Board members.
4. Revision and Resubmission
Authors will be notified of the editorial decision and any required revisions. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within 30 days, accompanied by a revised version incorporating all requested changes, a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer and editor comment, and a copy of the originally submitted manuscript. Failure to submit the revised files and response letter within the specified period may result in the submission being considered withdrawn. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance, as the revised manuscript remains subject to further editorial assessment and, if necessary, additional peer review.
5. Reconsideration of Editorial Decisions
Authors may formally challenge an editorial decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must include the manuscript identification number and a clear, evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
An appeal may be considered when there is reasonable evidence of a conflict of interest involving a reviewer, handling editor, or the Editor-in-Chief; a substantial technical or methodological misunderstanding affecting the assessment; or an inadequate consideration of the manuscript's scientific contribution.
Requests that merely express disagreement with the decision or seek an additional opinion without providing substantive justification will not normally be considered. Appeals are accepted exclusively from the original submitting author or the designated corresponding author.
All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo a double-blind peer review procedure to ensure an impartial and rigorous assessment of their scientific merit. Following an initial editorial assessment, the Editor-in-Chief designates an Editorial Board member to coordinate the evaluation. Each manuscript is subsequently assessed by at least two external specialists and one internal reviewer, selected according to their academic qualifications and subject expertise.
Before accepting an invitation, prospective reviewers are provided with the manuscript abstract and are asked to confirm that their expertise is appropriate, no potential conflict of interest exists, and they can complete the evaluation within the required timeframe. Reviewers are generally expected to submit their assessments within two weeks of accepting the invitation.
2. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality
All individuals involved in the editorial and peer review process must adhere to the journal's publication ethics requirements and the principles outlined in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for peer reviewers.
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and notify the editorial office if they identify possible research misconduct or ethical concerns. Submitted manuscripts must not be shared, reproduced, or used for purposes unrelated to the review process. Strict confidentiality must be maintained throughout the evaluation, and the identities and privacy of all participants must be protected.
3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision
After receiving the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates their recommendations and provides an editorial assessment to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers may recommend one of three outcomes: Acceptance, indicating that the manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revisions; Revision Required, indicating that the manuscript may be reconsidered after the authors address the reviewers' concerns and make the necessary modifications; or Rejection, indicating that the manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements, with the reasons clearly documented. The Editor-in-Chief retains full responsibility for the final publication decision, taking into consideration the scientific merit of the manuscript, the reviewers' evaluations, and the handling editor's recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief is also responsible for maintaining the journal's academic standards and overseeing the appointment of Guest Editors, approval of special issues, and selection of new Editorial Board members.
4. Revision and Resubmission
Authors will be notified of the editorial decision and any required revisions. Revised manuscripts must be resubmitted within 30 days, accompanied by a revised version incorporating all requested changes, a detailed point-by-point response addressing each reviewer and editor comment, and a copy of the originally submitted manuscript. Failure to submit the revised files and response letter within the specified period may result in the submission being considered withdrawn. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance, as the revised manuscript remains subject to further editorial assessment and, if necessary, additional peer review.
5. Reconsideration of Editorial Decisions
Authors may formally challenge an editorial decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The appeal must include the manuscript identification number and a clear, evidence-based explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.
An appeal may be considered when there is reasonable evidence of a conflict of interest involving a reviewer, handling editor, or the Editor-in-Chief; a substantial technical or methodological misunderstanding affecting the assessment; or an inadequate consideration of the manuscript's scientific contribution.
Requests that merely express disagreement with the decision or seek an additional opinion without providing substantive justification will not normally be considered. Appeals are accepted exclusively from the original submitting author or the designated corresponding author.
View: 25 Time(s) | Print: 1 Time(s) | Email: 0 Time(s) |
0 Comment(s)
Other articles
