Peer Review

Peer review is a critical procedure to ensure the academic quality and validity of published manuscripts. Reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to improve manuscripts; their contributions are sincerely acknowledged and respected.

GENERAL POLICY

This journal adheres to the core principles of publication ethics as defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). The peer review process may operate in single-blind, double-blind, open, or transparent modes, with the former two being primary for this journal.

I. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors must:
1.Ensure confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities throughout the review process.
2.Declare and avoid conflicts of interest (e.g., institutional, financial, or collaborative ties to authors) when handling submissions.
3.Make initial screening decisions based on academic merit, scope fit, and ethical compliance (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
4.Select unbiased reviewers with relevant expertise, avoiding those from the same institution as authors or with recent co-authorship relationships.
5.Handle appeals or complaints according to COPE guidelines, ensuring due process.

II. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must:
1.Confidentiality & Data Security
Maintain perpetual confidentiality of manuscript content and related correspondence.
Do not share, discuss, or upload manuscripts to non-secure platforms (including AI tools).

2.Conflict of Interest
Decline review if conflicts exist (e.g., competitive research, financial ties, personal/professional relationships with authors).
Immediately notify the Editorial Office if conflicts emerge during review.

3.Timeliness & Integrity
Provide feedback within the journal’s timeframe or decline promptly.
Do not plagiarize or cite unpublished manuscript content.
Use AI tools only for language polishing (not for content analysis/decision-making), and disclose usage in comments to editors.

4.Ethical Vigilance
Identify potential ethical violations (e.g., unattributed text reuse, unethical data collection).

III. Authors' Obligations
Authors must:
Disclose AI-assisted writing tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in the cover letter and methods section. AI cannot be listed as an author or cited as a source.
Ensure originality of all content, including AI-generated text/images.

MAJOR POINTS FOR REVIEWER COMMENTS
Reviewers should evaluate:
1.Importance and significance of findings.
2.Novelty and innovation.
3.Quality of presentation and readability.
4.Ethics compliance (e.g., IRB approval for human/animal studies, informed consent).
5.Soundness of study design and supporting data.
6.Language quality (flag if professional polishing is needed).

SPECIFIC POINTS FOR REVIEWER COMMENTS
Title/Abstract: Accuracy and clarity of research scope and innovation.
Methods: Sufficient detail for reproducibility; appropriateness of statistics.
Results: Adequacy of evidence and data presentation.
Discussion: Logical organization and evidence-supported conclusions.
References: Relevance, appropriateness, and up-to-date sources (≥ 50% within 3 years recommended).
Tables/Figures: Conciseness and alignment with key findings.

Please contact us for more policy regarding peer review.