The Journal utilizes a double-blind review process to ensure the fairness and objectivity of reviews. When the journal receives a submission, the editor-in-chief consults with the editor in the relevant field, who recommends suitable reviewers. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two scholars or experts, each of whom makes one of the following recommendations:
- Publish without revision
- Resubmit with minor revisions
- Resubmit with major revisions
- Not recommended
1. Follows largely in the footsteps of other domestic and foreign research; fails to offer new insights.
2. The research method and perspective exhibit major flaws.
3. The research’s conclusions have no theoretical or practical value.
4. Other (please explain).
Submissions will be handled in the following manner, depending on the reviewers recommendations:
|Result||Second reviewer’s recommendation|
|Publish||Minor revisions||Major revisions||Not recommended|
|First reviewer’s recommendation||Publish||Published||Returned for revision||Returned for revision||Read by a third reviewer|
|Minor revisions||Returned for revision||Returned for revision||Returned for revision||Read by a third reviewer|
|Major revisions||Returned for revision||Returned for revision||Rejected or Returned for revision by the editor-in-chief||Rejected|
|Not recommended||Read by a third reviewer||Read by a third reviewer||Rejected||Rejected|
If the two reviewers’ recommendations are radically different, the manuscript is given to a third reviewer for evaluation. If the third reviewer’s recommendation is “publish” or “minor revisions,” the manuscript will be sent back to the author for revision and resubmission. If the third reviewer’s recommendation is “major revisions” or “not recommended,” the manuscript will be rejected. The results of the reviews and the reviewers opinions will be sent to the submitter.