You were invited to review this manuscript based on your subject-matter expertise, publication record, or previous experience as a reviewer in the relevant research area. Reviewer selection aims to ensure appropriate scientific or clinical knowledge, diversity of perspectives, and the absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest, thereby supporting a fair and rigorous peer review process.
You may accept or decline the invitation directly via the link provided in the editor’s email or through the journal’s submission system (click “Submit manuscript” or “For author–Online submission”). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to respond promptly—whether accepting or declining—to facilitate an efficient editorial workflow and avoid unnecessary delays in the review process.
If you are unable to fully evaluate specific sections of the manuscript (e.g., advanced statistical analyses or cross-disciplinary content), please contact the editorial office (email in Contact us). The editor may invite additional reviewers with relevant expertise to assess those components.
A conflict of interest may include financial interests, academic relationships with the authors (e.g., co-authorship, doctoral supervision, or academic rivalry), or personal relationships that could compromise objectivity. Any actual or potential conflicts should be disclosed to the editor when responding to the review invitation. The editor will assess whether you are suitable to serve as a reviewer for the manuscript.
Yes. If you are unable to review due to time constraints, limited expertise, or potential conflicts of interest, you may decline the invitation. In such cases, it is highly appreciated if you can suggest one to three qualified alternative reviewers, including their full names, email addresses, institutional affiliations, and research fields.
You may enter the recommended reviewer information directly into the online submission system when declining the invitation, or alternatively notify the editorial office via the contact details provided in the “Contact us” section of the journal website. This assistance helps the editor identify a suitable reviewer more efficiently.
The journal operates a single-blind peer review process. This model is intended to promote objective assessment while allowing reviewers to evaluate the work in its appropriate scholarly context.
Detailed guidance on the specific assessment criteria and review dimensions is provided in the journal’s Reviewer guidelines available on the website. Reviewers are encouraged to evaluate manuscripts in accordance with these standards to ensure consistency, fairness, and scientific rigor.
Reviewers are encouraged to assess the manuscript across several key dimensions to ensure a balanced and rigorous evaluation. In general, reviewers may consider the following aspects:
● Originality and significance: Does the manuscript present new and meaningful findings that justify publication in the journal?
● Abstract quality: Does the Abstract (or Summary) clearly and accurately reflect the content, scope, and main conclusions of the article?
● Clarity of the research problem: Is the research question or objective clearly defined, relevant, and concisely stated?
● Methods and study design: Are the experimental, clinical, and/or theoretical methods described in sufficient detail to allow understanding and, where applicable, reproducibility?
● Results and conclusions: Are the interpretations and conclusions adequately supported by the data and results presented?
● Engagement with the literature: Is appropriate and sufficient reference made to relevant prior work in the field?
● Language and presentation: Is the manuscript written in clear and acceptable language, with an appropriate structure and logical flow?
Reviewers are not required to address every point in equal depth. Comments should focus on issues that are most critical to the scientific quality, reliability, and clarity of the manuscript.
Common recommendations include: Accept, Minor revision, Major revision, or Reject. The recommendation should be consistent with written comments and supported by clear reasoning.
Comments to the editor: Confidential recommendations, concerns, or contextual information to support editorial decision-making.
Comments to the authors: Constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.
We strongly recommend submitting your review report directly via the ScholarOne Manuscripts system. Within the “Review” of ScholarOne system, you will find detailed manuscript information and the corresponding submission link. Reviewers may view the manuscript in both HTML and PDF formats. In addition, the system allows reviewers to fill out their comments directly in the web form or compile their comments into a document for uploading.
If you encounter any technical difficulties while accessing the manuscript or submitting your review, please contact the journal’s editorial office (email in Contact us) promptly for support.
The standard review deadline is 15 days from the date of accepting the invitation, which is aligned with the norms of mainstream academic publishers.
Yes. If you cannot complete the review on time, please contact the journal’s editorial office (email in Contact us) to explain the situation and apply for an extension. The editor will evaluate your request and inform you of the new deadline as soon as possible.
Most manuscripts undergo 1–2 rounds of peer review. A small number of manuscripts may not require a second round of review if the editor deems the initial review comments sufficient for a decision.
All manuscript materials—including the main text, figures, tables, supplementary files, and any information associated with the peer review process—are strictly confidential. Reviewers are required to respect author confidentiality at all stages of the review process and must not use or disclose any unpublished information obtained through peer review.
In particular, reviewers must not:
● Share the manuscript or any part of its content with third parties.
● Disclose any information related to the review process, including manuscript content, reviewer comments, editorial correspondence, or editorial decisions, to anyone outside the peer review process.
● Use unpublished data, methods, or ideas contained in the manuscript for their own research, teaching, or other professional activities before the manuscript is formally published or definitively rejected.
If you find any signs of academic misconduct in the manuscript, please report it to editor office in the comment to the editor or via email (in Contact us) and provide detailed evidence (e.g., relevant literature links, abnormal data points). The journal will follow the COPE guidelines to conduct a rigorous investigation into the suspected misconduct and take appropriate measures to maintain academic integrity.
Reviewers are not permitted to upload manuscripts, review reports, or any confidential review-related materials to generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including for purposes such as language editing, content analysis, or summarization. Generative AI tools must not be used to assist with the scientific evaluation, judgment, or drafting of the review report, as such use may compromise author confidentiality and introduce bias or inaccuracies.
Our reviewers now have the opportunity to opt-in to receive recognition for their review contributions at “Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service”. Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service allows you to track, verify and showcase your review work and expertise without compromising anonymity. You can read more at Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service service.
Peer review is generally unpaid and is regarded as a professional service to the academic community. Reviewers may, where applicable, receive non-monetary recognition in accordance with journal policy.
If you have previously contributed to this journal or journals published by Higher Education Press, you may inform the editorial office via the journal’s public contact email at the time of manuscript submission. Such contributions may be considered, at the discretion of the journal and in accordance with relevant policies, when assessing the eligibility for any potential Article Processing Charge (APC) waiver or reduction. No guarantee of fee adjustment is implied.
Yes. The journal has established a “Training resources” section to support reviewers throughout the peer review process. These resources are provided free of charge and may include:
● Professional guidance on the review submission workflow within the online peer review system, including step-by-step instructions for submitting reviewer reports.
● Examples of high-quality review reports (Unless requested by authors or reviewers, any exemplary review cases shared for training purposes will be presented in an anonymized form, with manuscript-specific content and reviewer-identifying information removed, in order to protect confidentiality and privacy).
In addition, the journal provides Reviewer guidelines that outline review criteria and ethical responsibilities to assist reviewers in conducting fair, consistent, and high-quality peer review.
You can contact the handling editor directly via the email address in the review invitation email or editorial office (email in Contact us). For general technical or administrative issues, you can contact the journal’s editorial assistant at the dedicated email address listed on the journal’s official website. We will reply to all valid inquiries within 2 working days.
First, check your network connection and whether the browser is compatible with the system. If the problem persists, contact the journal’s editorial office (email in Contact us), providing your reviewer ID, the reviewing manuscript ID and a detailed description of the technical problem. The editorial office will solve the problem for you as soon as possible and provide alternative access methods if needed.