A Serious Initiative on Peer Expert Review (30 Items)

According to the feedback from authors, some peer review experts' review comments are too simple and fail to provide detailed and clear revision suggestions, including the mixing of different types of words in the comments.To uphold academic standards, respect the labor of researchers and authors, ensure the fairness, impartiality and rigor of peer review, and promote the healthy development of academic undertakings, we hereby issue the following 30 serious initiatives to all peer experts, urging them to perform review duties with a rigorous, responsible and impartial attitude:
●Establish a correct understanding of peer review, clarify that it is an important link to ensure academic quality, assume the responsibility of academic gatekeeping, and treat each manuscript with a serious and prudent
●attitude, without perfunctoriness or negligence. Adhere to the principle of fairness and impartiality, put aside personal prejudices, interests and academic biases, evaluate the manuscript based on academic standards and research facts, and ensure that the review opinions are objective and neutral.
●Strictly abide by academic ethics and review norms, keep the content of the manuscript and review opinions confidential, do not disclose the author's information, manuscript content or review results to irrelevant personnel, and avoid academic misconduct.
●Accept review tasks within your own professional field, and do not undertake review work beyond your professional competence to ensure that the review opinions are professional and authoritative.
●Upon receiving the review task, arrange time reasonably, complete the review work within the specified time limit, and avoid delaying the author's submission process and the journal's publication schedule.
●Read the manuscript comprehensively and carefully, grasp the core content, research ideas, research methods and innovation points of the manuscript, and avoid one-sided evaluation due to hasty reading.
●Focus on evaluating the academic value, innovation, scientificity and feasibility of the manuscript, and put forward targeted and constructive review opinions, rather than simply affirming or denying.
●For the strengths of the manuscript, clearly point out and affirm them, so as to give positive guidance to the author; for the deficiencies, clearly point out the specific problems and put forward feasible improvement suggestions.
●Pay attention to the logical consistency and structural rationality of the manuscript, check whether the argumentation is rigorous, the data is accurate, and the conclusion is reliable, and put forward revision suggestions for existing problems.
●Standardize the expression of review opinions, use accurate academic language, avoid vague, ambiguous or misleading words, and ensure that the author can clearly understand the core demands of the review.
●Check the academic norms of the manuscript, including literature citation, data source, professional terminology, etc., and point out the problems of non-standard expression and put forward correction suggestions.
●Pay attention to the originality of the manuscript, check whether there is plagiarism, tampering with data, forgery of results and other academic misconduct, and report to the journal editorial department in a timely manner if any problems are found.
●Treat the author's research work with respect, recognize the efforts and contributions of the author in the research process, and avoid arrogant or perfunctory language in the review opinions.
●For manuscripts with controversial academic viewpoints, objectively present different academic perspectives, avoid imposing personal academic views on the author, and guide the author to conduct in-depth research.
●Continuously improve their own academic literacy and professional level, pay attention to the latest research progress and academic norms in the field, and ensure that the review opinions keep pace with the times.
●Do not use the review opportunity to seek personal interests, such as asking the author for papers, funds or other improper benefits, and maintain the purity of academic review.
●When encountering conflicts of interest (such as being a colleague, mentor, student of the author, or having cooperative relations), take the initiative to declare and withdraw from the review to avoid affecting the fairness of the review.
●Carefully listen to the author's explanation and feedback on the review opinions, objectively re-examine the rationality of the review opinions, and make appropriate adjustments if necessary.
●Focus on the cultivation of young researchers, give more guidance and encouragement to the manuscripts of young authors, and help them improve their research and writing level.
●Do not arbitrarily deny the manuscript due to differences in academic schools or research methods, but evaluate it from a comprehensive and objective perspective.
●Ensure the comprehensiveness of the review, cover the research content, research methods, data analysis, conclusion derivation and other aspects of the manuscript, and avoid missing key problems.
●Write detailed and specific review opinions, avoid simple and perfunctory evaluations such as "pass" or "reject", and ensure that each opinion has a basis and is targeted.
●Cooperate with the journal editorial department's review work, actively respond to the editorial department's inquiries about the review opinions, and assist in promoting the revision and improvement of the manuscript.
●Reflect on the review work regularly, summarize the experience and deficiencies in the review process, and continuously improve the quality and level of review.
●Respect the review opinions of other experts, maintain a modest and prudent attitude in academic exchanges, and jointly promote the improvement of academic review quality.
●Do not disclose your identity as a reviewer without the permission of the journal editorial department, so as to avoid unnecessary interference with the author and the review work.
●Pay attention to the practical application value of the research results, evaluate whether the manuscript can provide useful reference for the development of the field, and put forward suggestions for the transformation and application of the results.
●For manuscripts that do not meet the publication standards, clearly explain the reasons for rejection, put forward specific improvement suggestions, and help the author improve the manuscript in future research.
●Adhere to the principle of academic tolerance, respect the diversity of academic research, and encourage innovative and exploratory research work.
●Editorial board members shall actively undertake review obligations and support the journal’s development. Rejecting 2 or more review invitations without valid reason will be deemed a failure to fulfill basic editorial duties.