For Reviewers

All peer reviewers shall abide by all of the publisher’s editorial and ethics policies. Reviewers play a key role in ensuring academic quality, integrity, and fairness of all published works. This section defines comprehensive duties, behavioral norms, prohibited conducts, rights, and relevant management rules for all reviewers.

1. Basic Qualifications and General Responsibilities

Reviewers shall possess solid academic expertise and rich research experience in the assigned field. They are only allowed to evaluate manuscripts within their professional scope. Reviewers must decline review requests promptly if they lack relevant expertise or are unable to finish the work on schedule.

Reviewers shall complete the evaluation and submit detailed and constructive comments within the time limit set by the editorial office. If temporary work overload or emergency occurs, they must inform the editorial team in advance to arrange alternative reviewers. Long-term unapproved delay of review is not permitted.

Reviewers are required to assess manuscripts comprehensively, including originality, scientific rigor, research methodology, logical reasoning, academic innovation, language quality, citation standardization, and compliance with journal scope.

2. Conflict of Interest (COI) & Recusal Rules

Reviewers must voluntarily declare and recuse themselves immediately if any potential or actual conflict of interest exists, including but not limited to: personal kinship, mentor-student relationship, long-term academic collaboration, direct academic competition, financial interests, institutional affiliation, or any other relationship that may affect objective judgment.

Reviewers shall not review manuscripts recommended or entrusted by third parties for improper purposes. All recusal applications must be submitted with clear explanations, and the editorial office will record all COI declarations for traceability.

3. Confidentiality Regulations

All unreviewed manuscripts, raw data, supplementary materials, review comments, and author information are strictly confidential. Reviewers shall not copy, distribute, share, cite, or use any content of unpublished manuscripts for personal research, publication, or commercial purposes.

Reviewers are forbidden to disclose manuscript details, review results, or internal evaluation opinions to any third party, including the authors. Confidentiality obligations remain effective even after the review process is completed. Any breach of confidentiality will result in immediate revocation of reviewer qualification.

4. Code of Conduct for Peer Review

Review evaluation must be objective, impartial, and evidence-based. Personal prejudice, subjective bias, sarcastic remarks, personal attacks, or arbitrary rejection/acceptance are strictly prohibited. All critical opinions must be supported by academic grounds.

Reviewers shall not modify, rewrite, or tamper with the original content of manuscripts. They may only put forward revision suggestions for authors’ reference.

Direct private contact with authors regarding the manuscript is forbidden. All communications must be conducted exclusively through the official editorial office.

5. Review Requirements for Special Manuscripts

For manuscripts involving human subjects, vulnerable populations, animal experiments, clinical trials, and biological cell research, reviewers shall focus on checking the validity of ethical approval documents, clinical trial registration information, and compliance with relevant animal welfare and biosafety regulations. Any suspected ethical violations must be clearly pointed out in the review report.

Reviewers are required to inspect the rationality of research data, experimental design, and result presentation. If data falsification, image tampering, or unreasonable conclusions are suspected, reviewers must specify relevant doubts in the comments and suggest the editorial office to launch further verification.

6. Use of AI Tools during Review

If reviewers adopt Artificial Intelligence tools (LLMs, auxiliary analysis tools, etc.) to assist reading, sorting, or analyzing manuscript content, they must make full disclosure to the editorial office. Reviewers bear full responsibility for the final review opinions, regardless of whether AI tools are used. AI tools shall not replace independent academic judgment.

7. Prohibited Behaviors & Sanctions

The following behaviors are regarded as serious violations of review norms and will lead to corresponding sanctions, including warning, suspension of review authority, permanent removal from the reviewer database, and public record of misconduct:

• Perfunctory, superficial, or unsubstantiated review reports;
• Malicious evaluation, deliberate suppression of competing research;
• Collusion with authors or third parties to manipulate review results;
• Violation of confidentiality and conflict of interest rules.

8. Rights of Reviewers

Right to academic independence: Reviewers have the right to deliver objective evaluation opinions freely without external interference.

Privacy protection: The publisher will keep all reviewers’ personal information and review records confidential and will not disclose them to authors or other parties without permission.

Academic recognition: Outstanding reviewers will receive official recognition, certificates, and annual honors.

Resource and training support: Reviewers have access to the journal’s latest academic resources and standardized peer review guideline documents.

Right to appeal: Reviewers who encounter unfair treatment during the editorial process may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office. This appeal mechanism does not cover any evaluation disputes regarding manuscript review results.

9. Resignation and Continuous Service

Should reviewers decide to terminate their peer-review collaboration permanently, they are required to send a formal written resignation notification to the editorial office ahead of time. If you wish to become a peer reviewer, please submit your application to the journal’s official email address.