Regulations for Peer Review
1. Selection standard for reviewers
People with PhD or senior professional titles(including associate professor, senior engineering and senior lab master) are qualified.
Those who have published over 10 papers in national core periodicals are preferred.
Academic leaders and front-line researchers are qualified.
2. Database of reviewers
JFSQ has established a database of peer review, monitoring reviewers dynamically. Reviewers who are incapable of reaching the editing standard twice consecutively or completing work on time will be eliminated.
3. Peer Review Mechanism
The process depends on the Peer Review Mechanism, Single-Blind Peer Review will be used.
This mechanism firmly stick to the "three auditors" process—internal auditor (Editor-in-Charge), external auditor (Peer Review) and final auditor (Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor-in-Chief or Editor-in-Charge).
4. Quality control of Peer Review
Selection rules: articles should be scientific, innovative, important, effective and interesting. Expressions should meet relative high standard; political views of articles should conform to relevant provisions of the constitution laws; The content should be unpublished or has not been published on other publications.
Each article should be reviewed by three or more examiners, at least one of whom is editorial board member.Each article should be approved by at least two peer reviewers before acception.
Articles with sharply divided views should be judged by Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor-in-Chief or Editor-in-Charge.
5. Processes and methods for misconduct of reviewers
When reviewers give improper suggestions, these suggestions will be declared invalid after verification, and reviewers will be disqualified.
If reviewers plagiarize or copy articles, their suggestions will become invalid after verification, their units to which they belong and their sponsors will be informed, and reviewers should cooperate with authors to solve associated problems in accordance with law.
If reviewers divulge articles to the third person without the authors consent, they will be disqualifed after verification. Reviewers should be cooperative to solve related problems in accordance with law.
If reviewers procrastinate examing preriod without reason, editors and related members of Editorial Board have the rights to find other substitutes and disqualified the reviewers.
If reviewers make improper deal with authors, they will be disqualifed and their units to which they belong after verification and their sponsors will be informed accordingly.
If reviewers force authors to quote theirs or certain persons’ articles, they will be disqualified and their suggestions will be also invalid after verification.
6. Efficiency
The preliminary review should be finished in less than 14 days, reexamination in 10 days.
Reviewers will be substituted if they fail to give comments in 20 days.
7. Green Channel
Articles recommended by academicians or written by renowned authors, and first articles of major national scientific research projects will get their first review result in 15 days.
8. Basic procedure of review in the Editorial Department
(1) All the articles should be registered and numbered.
(2)Examined by the database.
(3)Preliminary audit. Disciplined editors or directors of editorial department give practical assessment of the articles content, views and expressions according to the basic standards, and then write down suggestions briefly. Improper manuscripts must be sent back.
(4)External audit. Articles from the preliminary audit or still need further revision should come to the external audit. Three peer reviewers who have the final say will guarantee the quality of these papers.
(5)Acceptance: in most cases, two or more approvals/declines in the peer review equal the acceptance/rejection of the article. For those submissions featuring new ideas to which the peer panels have different views, they are required to be given to the chief editor or managing editor for final decision. For those commended by the chief editor or managing editor, they are needed to have one more approval from another peer reviewer to be accepted. Once the article is accepted, the editorial department may forward the decision to the author, which reviewers may not do.
(6) Final review. Generally, the final review is subject to the chief editor or the managing editor. And the chief editor may make the final decision on those pieces with no agreement among reviewers.
9. Points for attention
(1)According to the Copyright Law, editorial department should get authors consent before publishing parts of manuscripts, and articles should be abandoned without mutual consent.
(2)Results of articles should inform the authors in the name of Editorial Department. Editors who reveal comments and information to authors will be punished.
BACK
