About Reviewers

(1) This journal is a double-blind peer-reviewed academic journal. The purpose of peer review is to assist the editorial board in making decisions on manuscript review and to help authors improve their papers. Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure that they have the necessary expertise to review the manuscript and that they are able to provide fast, reasonable and fair conclusions. If a reviewer is deemed unsuitable to review a manuscript or is unable to ensure the timely provision of review comments, he or she should immediately notify the Editorial Office so that an alternative reviewer can be contacted.

(2) Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript if they have any competing interests with the author (e.g., personal, financial, intellectual, professional, in their team or organization, political or religious).

(3) Reviewers should not delegate the review of a manuscript without the permission of the Editorial Board.

(4) Reviewers should not share data, arguments, or interpretations of a manuscript with anyone unless they have permission from the authors.

Handling of Academic Misconduct

The Journal always adheres to strict academic ethical standards and resolutely eliminates academic misconduct (e.g., duplication of papers, plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of experiments, data or content, etc.). If a paper involves any misbehavior, the editorial board will fully assist the relevant departments in the investigation. For academic misconduct with solid evidence, punitive measures will be taken such as blacklisting all authors, notifying the author's organization, withdrawing the paper, and pursuing the legal responsibility of the authors.