Review Criteria

This Journal adopts the "three-review" process, i.e. internal review, peer review and final review. In order to build the rigorous study style, prevent the academic misconducts and practically improve the academic quality of this Journal, reviewers and editors shall strictly abide by the Review Criteria when examining and approving papers.

1. Code of ethics in publishing

Reviewers must abide by the following code of ethics in publishing:

1) Reviewers shall review each paper fairly and objectively and give the final review result according to the value and quality of the paper, without considering the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority or institutional background.

2) When receiving invitations for review, reviewers must make clear any potential conflict of interest with the papers, including any relationship with the authors, so as to ensure that they will not have any prejudice against the papers.

3) Reviewers must keep the review process confidential and shall not disclose any information about papers to anyone not engaged in the peer review process.

4) Reviewers shall make every reasonable effort to review papers and submit comments on time. If failing to review papers or submit comments on time, they shall inform editors in time.

5) Reviewers shall give objective, fair and effective review comments based on the value and quality of papers and the situation of the Journal, so as to help editors make a final decision and assist authors in improving the contents of papers.

6) Reviewers shall determine any substantial similarity or repetition between the relevant publications and articles not cited by the authors and the published papers and inform editors.

7) Reviewers shall objectively review papers and shall not add any personal criticism of authors to their comments.

8) Without explicit written consent of authors, reviewers shall not use any unpublished materials of reviewed papers in their own research. They shall keep all relevant information or ideas obtained from the review process confidential and shall not use them in their personal work results.

Editors must abide by the following code of ethics in publishing:

1) Editors shall evaluate each paper fairly and objectively and make judgment according to the value and quality of the paper, without considering the author's race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority or institutional background.

2) Editors shall reject papers directly without peer review when they think that the papers are not suitable for the reporting direction of the Journal.

3) Editors shall ensure that each paper is peer-reviewed by at least two experts in the field mentioned by the paper.

4) Editors shall strive to evaluate papers efficiently and timely.

5) Editors must keep the peer review process confidential and shall not disclose any information about papers to anyone not engaged in the peer review process.

6) Editors must make clear any potential conflict of interest with the papers, including any relationship with the authors, so as to ensure that they will not have any prejudice against the papers.

7) Without explicit written consent of authors, editors shall not use any unpublished materials of reviewed papers in their own research.

8) Whenever receiving complaints about the ethics in publishing papers, editors shall take immediate measures to actively investigate situation, collect evidence and implement responsibility.  If necessary, editors shall make correction and cancellation.

9) If receiving conclusive evidence proving that main contents or conclusions of published papers have problems, editors shall conduct appropriate corrections.

2. Rules of peer review

1) Reviewers shall comprehensively evaluate papers from the aspects of topic, research methods, research results, conclusion, writing level and material citation. They shall give the final review conclusion of papers by considering the originality, novelty, scientificity, importance, interest and expressiveness.  Reviewers shall objectively put forward the problems in papers one by one, and try to give suggestions to help authors improve the papers.

2) If reviewers' comments are too general and broad to clarify the specific problems in papers, these comments shall be regarded as invalid.

3. Review period

1) Internal review: It shall be completed within 10 working days from the date of submission.

2) Peer review: From the date of submission for external review, reviewers shall give comments within one month. If the reviewers fail to give comments, the Editorial Department shall contact the reviewers and ask them to give comments as soon as possible. The papers required to be reexamined shall also be reviewed according to the above period.

3) Final review: It shall be completed within 5 working days from the date when authors submit the papers modified through external review.