The journal adopts a three-step peer review process, including initial screening, peer review, and final evaluation. To ensure academic quality and uphold research integrity, reviewers and editors are required to strictly adhere to the journal’s review guidelines throughout the editorial process.

1. Publication Ethics Guidelines

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following ethical standards:

1）Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively, and provide impartial, fair, and valid review comments based on the academic value and quality of the manuscript. If there is any potential conflict of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the authors, reviewers must ensure that it does not affect their impartiality.

2）Reviewers must keep the review process confidential. Any information related to the manuscript must not be shared with anyone outside the peer review process. Reviewers should submit their review comments on time. If a reviewer is unable to conduct the review or cannot submit the comments on time, they should notify the editor promptly.

3） Reviewers should assist the editor in making the final decision based on the value and quality of the manuscript as well as the journal’s standards, and help authors improve the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should identify relevant publications not cited by the authors and point out any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and previously published papers, and report them to the editor.

4）Reviewers must provide objective and respectful feedback. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate and unacceptable.

5）Without the explicit written consent of the authors, reviewers must not use any unpublished materials in the manuscript in their own research. Any privileged information obtained through the peer review process must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.

 Editors must adhere to the following publication ethics guidelines:

1）Editors should evaluate each manuscript objectively and fairly, and judge it based on its academic value and quality. If there is any potential conflict of interest with the manuscript, including any relationship with the authors, editors must ensure that it does not affect their impartiality. If the editor determines that the manuscript does not align with the journal’s scope, it should be rejected directly without external peer review.

2）Editors must ensure that each manuscript is reviewed by at least two experts in the relevant field, and must keep the peer review process confidential. Information related to the manuscript must not be shared with anyone outside the peer review process.

3）Without the explicit written consent of the authors, editors must not use any unpublished materials from the manuscript in their own research.

4）When editors receive complaints regarding publication ethics of a manuscript, they must respond promptly by investigating, collecting evidence, and taking action. If necessary, corrections or retractions should be made. If solid evidence proves that the main content or conclusions of a published paper are problematic, the editor must initiate appropriate correction procedures.

2.  Peer Review Policy

1）The journal adopts a single-blind peer review process. All manuscripts must be reviewed by at least two experts. If the opinions of the two reviewers differ significantly, a third reviewer will be invited to provide an arbitration review.

2）Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript comprehensively based on the research topic, methodology, results, conclusions and writing quality, references, as well as the manuscript’s originality, novelty, scientific rigor, and significance. Reviewers should objectively identify any issues in the manuscript point by point and provide suggestions to help the authors improve the paper.

3）If a reviewer provides comments that are overly vague or general and fails to identify specific issues in the manuscript, such comments may be considered invalid review opinions.