An International Academic Publisher
Open Access

Editorial Process

Home / Information / Editorial Process
Editorial Policies Editorial Process Open Access Policy Publication Ethics Advertising Policy

Editorial Process

Peer review is the primary step in evaluating the academic quality and literature value of submitted manuscripts and is also the most crucial step in the entire manuscript review process. Hong Kong Guokang Future Publishing House Co., Limited adopts the internationally recognized double-anonymous peer review system to ensure the objectivity and fairness of this step. The review rules and details are as follows.

Peer Review Process Policy

  • Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two experts.
  • Reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors, nor should they have close personal or professional ties.
  • A double-blind review mechanism is employed (both reviewers' and authors' identities are kept confidential).
  • Interdisciplinary manuscripts are reviewed by experts from different fields.

Selection of Reviewers Policy

  • The selection of reviewers is comprehensively evaluated based on the journal's dynamic reviewer database, references from the submitted manuscript, and literature retrieval platforms.
  • Reviewers are selected according to the keywords or main terms of the submitted manuscript to ensure alignment with the research field.
  • The academic qualifications of reviewers are primarily assessed based on their publications in authoritative journals in China and other countries, as well as their academic influence.
  • The reliability of reviewers is determined by their conscientiousness in review tasks and their ability to provide feedback within the review cycle.
  • The availability of sufficient time and energy from reviewers is an important consideration for the editorial department.
  • Peer experts who could potentially identify the authors based on the manuscript's content are excluded from the pool of potential reviewers for that article.

Peer Review Process

1

Submission

Upon receiving a submission, the editorial office registers the manuscript and sends a receipt to the corresponding author, providing the manuscript ID and account information for logging into the website to track the manuscript status.

2

Initial Review

If a manuscript is inconsistent with the journal's aims and scope; lacks novelty or merely repeats previous research; overlaps with other submitted manuscripts; has vague viewpoints, poor logic, or low readability; has a total text similarity rate exceeding 10% as detected in academic misconduct screening; or has obvious flaws in experimental or theoretical research, it will be rejected or recommended for submission to another journal.

3

Peer Review

The editorial office sends the manuscript to two external reviewers for double-blind peer review, evaluating originality, academic quality, and rigor. For statistical issues, a statistical editor also reviews the manuscript. The external review period is generally 21 working days. If reviewers' opinions differ, a third reviewer is invited; if two or more reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected.

4

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief conducts the final review of manuscripts that have passed external review. The handling editor submits the manuscript, initial review comments, and peer review feedback to the Editor-in-Chief, who decides whether to accept the manuscript. The final decision is returned to the handling editor for further processing.

Review Comments Policy

The outcomes of manuscript review fall into four categories: Acceptance / Revision and Acceptance / Revision and Re-review / Rejection.

The journal encourages diverse academic perspectives on manuscripts. The editorial department adheres to the principles of objectivity and fairness in handling review comments, ensuring that manuscript quality is evaluated based on academic standards without being influenced by factors such as political views, gender, or region.

Ethical Requirements

  • Editors, editorial board members, and reviewers should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely.
  • The journal employs a double-blind review process. Editors should avoid selecting editorial board members with conflicts of interest to review manuscripts, and editorial board members should avoid selecting peer reviewers with conflicts of interest to participate in the peer review process.