Manuscript Review Policy and Procedures

1. Initial Review
Conducted by the editorial office. Submissions that fall outside the journal's scope, present ethical concerns, or show signs of academic misconduct will be rejected.

2. External Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)
Manuscripts are evaluated by external experts for originality, scientific validity, and practical relevance. Reviewers provide detailed feedback on methodology, data, results, and references. The editorial office synthesizes reviewer comments and issues a decision. Authors must respond to all comments and submit a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response letter.

3. Secondary Review
Conducted by the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, focusing on political compliance, authenticity, structure, and formatting. The Editor-in-Chief then reviews the manuscript for scope, content, and social value before approving its progression to the final stage.

4. Final Review
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on all prior reviews, with emphasis on political orientation, academic quality, social impact, and policy compliance. Decisions may include acceptance, revision, further review, or rejection.

Throughout all stages of the review process, the editorial office upholds the principles of academic integrity and strictly adheres to the professional ethics standards for editors of scientific and technical journals.

5. Review Flowchart
A detailed flowchart of the review process is available.