The journal operates a three-tier review process comprising internal review, peer review, and final editorial decision. In order to uphold academic integrity, guard against scholarly misconduct, and continuously improve the academic quality of the journal, reviewers and editors are required to strictly adhere to the following review ethics throughout the evaluation process.

1  Publication Ethics Guidelines

Reviewers shall comply with the following publication ethics guidelines:

Reviewers shall evaluate each manuscript fairly and objectively, basing their final recommendation on the merit and quality of the manuscript, without regard to the author’s race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation.

Upon receiving a review invitation, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest pertaining to the manuscript, including any relationship with the author(s), so as to ensure that the evaluation is free from bias.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. No information concerning the manuscript shall be shared with any person outside the peer review process.

Reviewers shall make every reasonable effort to evaluate the manuscript and submit their review comments within the specified timeframe. Should a reviewer be unable to complete the review or submit comments on time, they shall promptly notify the editor.

Reviewers shall provide objective, fair, and constructive comments, taking into account the merit and quality of the manuscript as well as the scope of the journal. Such comments shall assist the editor in reaching a final decision and help the authors improve their manuscript.

Reviewers shall identify any relevant publications that the authors have failed to cite, as well as any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and previously published papers, and shall report these findings to the editor.

Reviewers shall evaluate manuscripts objectively; personal criticism directed at the author(s) must not appear in the review comments.

Without the explicit written consent of the author(s), reviewers must not use any unpublished material from the manuscript under review in their own research. Information or ideas obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and must not be exploited for personal academic gain.

Editors shall comply with the following publication ethics guidelines:

Editors shall evaluate each manuscript objectively and fairly, judging it on the basis of its merit and quality, without regard to the author’s race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation.

When editors determine that a manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal, they may reject it outright without sending it out for peer review.

Editors shall ensure that every manuscript undergoes peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field.

Editors shall endeavor to process manuscripts efficiently and in a timely manner.

Editors must maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process. No information concerning a manuscript shall be shared with any person outside the peer review process.

Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest pertaining to a manuscript, including any relationship with the author(s), so as to ensure that the evaluation is free from bias.

Without the explicit written consent of the author(s), editors must not use any unpublished material from a manuscript under review in their own research.

Whenever editors receive a complaint concerning publication ethics in relation to an article, they shall immediately respond, actively investigate, gather evidence, and take appropriate action. When necessary, correction or retraction measures shall be initiated.

Where conclusive evidence reveals problems with the main content or conclusions of a published article, editors shall initiate appropriate corrigendum proceedings.

Authors shall comply with the following publication ethics guidelines:

The content of an article must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere, nor simultaneously submitted to another publication. Multiple submissions of the same manuscript, duplicate publication, and salami slicing are strictly prohibited.

The content of an article must be the author’s original work, and the data must be authentic and reliable. Plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification of data are not permitted. For any material cited from other sources, the author must properly attribute the source and obtain permission where necessary.

The listed authors and affiliations must be accurate. Improper authorship is not permitted, including: excluding individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research from the author list; including individuals who have not made substantial contributions; adding or removing authors or affiliations after acceptance without authorization; providing false author information; and an author order that does not accurately reflect the actual contributions.

All listed authors shall bear responsibility for the content of the article.

The corresponding author shall ensure that all listed authors have consented to the publication of the article and to their inclusion in the author list.

The authors shall clearly disclose any specific or hazardous experiments, materials, or procedures described in the article.

Authors shall retain all original data underlying the article and make it available for verification when required.

Authors shall refrain from making any defamatory statements that may harm any individual.

Authors shall declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the article.

Authors shall acknowledge all sources of research funding supporting the work.

Authors who disagree with the review comments or the review decision may file an appeal with the editorial office.

Special note: artificial intelligence (AI) tools may be used solely for language polishing assistance and must not be used for generative editing or autonomous content creation.

2  Peer Review Rules

The journal employs a double-anonymized peer review system. All manuscripts must be evaluated by at least two independent experts. Should the two reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, a third expert shall be invited to conduct an arbitration review.

Reviewers shall comprehensively evaluate each manuscript based on the following criteria: research topic, methodology, research findings, conclusions, writing quality, and citation of sources. Reviewers shall consider the originality, novelty, scientific validity, significance, readability, and clarity of the article, and shall render a final review recommendation. Reviewers shall identify specific issues in the manuscript item by item and provide constructive suggestions to assist the authors in improving their work.

Review comments that are overly general or vague and fail to identify specific problems in the manuscript shall be deemed invalid.

3  Review Timelines

Internal review: to be completed within 5 working days from the date of submission.

Peer review: reviewers shall submit their recommendations within one month from the date the manuscript is sent out for external review. If a reviewer fails to submit comments within this period, the editorial office shall contact the reviewer and request prompt submission. The same timeline applies to the re-review of revised manuscripts.

Final decision: to be completed within 5 working days from the date the author submits the revised manuscript incorporating external review comments.

4  Retraction and Correction

1. Should the editorial board or reviewers identify, during the review process or after publication, that an author has committed a publication ethics violation or engaged in scholarly misconduct, the editorial office shall launch an investigation and gather evidence. Once a violation is confirmed through investigation, the editorial office shall notify the author(s) by email, affording them an opportunity to respond. Depending on the severity of the violation, the editorial office may take the following measures (including but not limited to):

 1) If the manuscript is still under review, it may be rejected.

 2) If the article has already been published in print, appropriate measures shall be taken based on the nature and severity of the violation, which may include issuing a correction or corrigendum notice, or retracting the article. If the article has been indexed by major databases, the retracted article shall remain in the databases but will bear a “Retracted” watermark. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) will additionally provide a link to the specific reasons for retraction.

 3) The author’s home institution may be notified of the retraction.

 4) In cases of retraction due to scholarly misconduct or suspected fraud, the journal shall permanently decline submissions from the author(s) involved.

2. Upon discovering material errors or inaccuracies in a published article, the authors have an obligation to promptly issue a correction. The corresponding author should contact the editorial office to explain the impact of the errors on the article. The journal shall determine, based on the nature of the errors, whether to issue a corrigendum or retract the article. In the case of retraction, the retraction notice shall clearly specify which parts of the article are affected by the errors.