Peer review is a crucial component of the editorial and publishing process for academic journals, ensuring academic quality through evaluation by experts in the same field. The editorial office implements a four-stage review system: editorial preliminary review, executive associate editor re-review, external expert review, and final review by editor-in-chief/executive associate editor. To ensure fairness and improve review quality, a double-blind peer review procedure is adopted for external reviews. Specific procedures are as follows:

1. Peer Review Process

1.1 Preliminary review by Editors

First, the editor will check the text duplication rate of the manuscript. Manuscripts with a duplication rate exceeding 20% will be directly rejected. Then the overall situation of the manuscript will be evaluated, including the topic selection, academic level, and layout format. Manuscripts that meet the requirements of this journal can proceed to the re-review stage; otherwise, they will be rejected.

1.2 Re-review by the Executive Associate Editor

The executive associate editor will conduct a review in combination with the preliminary review opinions, the article's topic selection, and academic level. Manuscripts that meet the requirements of this journal can be sent for review by experts; otherwise, they will be rejected.

1.3 External Review by Experts

The manuscript will be evaluated for its innovation, academic level, and rigor. Manuscripts will be reviewed by at least 2 experts,who should provide detailed review comments.

1.4 Final Review by the Chief Editor/Executive Associate Editor

Based on the review opinions of experts, the Chief Editor/Executive Associate Editor will evaluate the overall quality of the article and decide whether to accept it or request revisions for re-review. Controversial manuscripts will be submitted to the  editorial committee meeting for discussion, and a final review conclusion will be given accordingly.

2. Review Requirements

The manuscripts are reviewed online. After receiving the review invitation email sent by this journal, reviewers can click on the link in the email to perform functions such as reading the manuscript, filling in review comments, and uploading revised manuscripts. The main review requirements are as follows:

2.1 Fairness

Reviewers shall be highly responsible for the editorial department, authors and readers, reviewing the manuscript seriously. Reviewers shall make fair decisions of publication according to the quality of manuscripts. For contributions from people related to themselves, (although we adopt the double-blind review, it is possible to know the author from the content of the paper), reviewers shall avoid the review of the manuscript. Reviewers shall encourage academic debate, not deliberately embarrass those who have different academic views with them and shall make an objective and fair evaluation of the academic level of each paper.

2.2 Comprehensiveness

Reviewers should provide detailed and comprehensive review comments on the manuscripts, including the necessity of the article's topic selection, the accuracy of the research methods and research process, the credibility of the research results, the standardization of the text expression, chart processing, and abstract content, the comprehensiveness of the references, and the academic ethics issues of the article, etc.

2.3 Confidentiality

Double-blind review is adopted, which means no disclosure of reviewer/author identities to each other. Reviewers shall not show the reviewed manuscripts to others or discuss with unrelated people. If reviewers need to solicit opinions from others under special circumstances, reviewers shall indicate on the review sheet and ask others to keep confidential. The name of reviewers and their comments shall not be told to the authors or others, except the editor department. The editorial department is responsible for summarizing all opinions and contacting the authors directly.

2.4 Timeliness

The reviewed manuscript shall be sent back to the editorial department within 20 days.   If unable to review (due to specialty mismatch or workload), please promptly decline review through system and optionally recommend alternative reviewers, so that it can be submitted to another reviewer. If the reviewer cannot complete the review on time due to a busy schedule or other reasons, please click "Decline Review" in a timely manner to return the manuscripts sent for review, and inform the editorial department to stop the review deadline. Late submissions will trigger reminder procedures.

2.5 Review Fees

Whether the manuscripts are accepted for publication or not, review fees will be paid according to the regulations. Reviewers will not be paid for manuscripts that are returned to the editorial department after clicking "Decline Review".