1.Review process

(1) Submit the manuscript for primary selection to two professional counterpart reviewers for independent evaluation. Based on expert opinions, categorize the manuscript into three outcomes: rejection, revision, and acceptance.

(2) Consolidate the feedback from both experts, provide it to the author, and request revisions in accordance with reviewer suggestions while addressing expert opinions.

(3) Conduct a reevaluation after revising: The reviewer should provide a second opinion on the revised manuscript.

(4) The editorial department will return it to the author based on input from an editorial committee and ask for further revisions.

(5) Once again revise as per author's modifications before returning it back to our editorial department. The final decision regarding usability or rejection will be made by considering expert opinions during summarization process.

(6) Finally, submit your revised manuscript for final examination by our chief editor who will determine its usability or rejection based on their expertise.

2.Paper evaluation criteria

Submitted papers must strictly adhere to the academic standards and formatting requirements of the journal prior to undergoing the peer review process. Peer review primarily assesses aspects such as novelty, scientific rigor, and practical applicability. Guidelines for writing and reviewing different types of papers can be found in the “Instruction for authors”.

3. Role responsibilities of reviewers

(1) We must ensure and guarantee the confidentiality of the manuscript, refraining from disclosing any details without the author's permission. Additionally, we should disclose all conflicts of interest when invited to review and in our comments during the review process. If there is a potential bias that may affect our ability to provide an unbiased review, it is advisable to decline the invitation.

(2) Potential conflicts of interest for reviewers include recent collaboration with the author, belonging to the same organization as the author, direct competition with the author, personal conflicts or close relationships with them, or having economic interests related to their work.

(3) After completing the manuscript review, both the manuscript and any accompanying materials should be securely disposed of.

(4) Review invitations should only be accepted within areas of expertise and completed within a reasonable timeframe.

(5) Without obtaining permission from the editorial department, reviewers should not delegate their reviewing tasks to others.

(6) The source or authorship of an article should not influence our evaluation process.

(7) Poor quality writing, slow response times, offensive language or unconstructive comments are unacceptable.