Peer Review of Acta Phytopathologica Sinica
I. Review Model
This journal adopts a single-blind peer review system: author information (name, affiliation, funding sources, etc.) is fully disclosed to reviewers, while reviewer identities remain confidential to authors. During external review, each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent peer experts for evaluation.
II. Reviewer Selection Criteria
1. Expertise Match: Alignment between the reviewer's specialization and the manuscript content;
2. Academic Qualification: Established scholarly impact and a consistent record of high-quality peer review;
3. Conflict of Interest Avoidance: No institutional affiliation with the authors, and absence of close academic ties (including but not limited to: mentor-mentee relationship, fellow student association, or project collaboration).
III. Review Criteria and Standards
(A) Review Dimensions
1. Academic Value: Theoretical or practical significance of the research topic, innovation, and disciplinary importance;
2. Methodological Quality: Scientific rigor of research design, reliability of data, and validity of conclusions;
3. Literature Foundation: Relevance of the introduction to the research question, and systematic coverage of literature review;
4. Discussion Depth: Objectivity and logical rigor of the discussion section;
5. Presentation: Accuracy of professional terminology and quality of figures and tables (accuracy, clarity, and standardization).
(B) Review Standards
Reviewers should provide specific and constructive comments addressing the above dimensions. Vague evaluations are prohibited (e.g., stating "insufficient innovation" without specific suggestions for improvement).
IV. Reviewer Responsibilities
1. Timeliness: Upon receiving a review invitation, please confirm your availability promptly. If accepting, complete the review within the specified timeframe; if unable to meet the deadline, notify the editorial office in advance.
2. Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content, review comments, and author information. Do not discuss the manuscript with any unrelated third parties during the review process.
3. Independence: Decline reviews if any conflict of interest exists (e.g., supervisor-student, co-author, or competitor).
4. Review Quality: Maintain objectivity and fairness; critical comments must be specific and evidence-based. Derogatory language or unsubstantiated allegations are strictly prohibited.
5. Citation Ethics: Recommendations for citation must be based solely on academic merit and necessity. It is strictly forbidden to suggest citations of your own work or that of your associates for the purpose of increasing citation counts.
6. Scope of Review: Reviewers should focus primarily on the academic quality of the manuscript. Formatting issues (e.g., reference citation style, figure/table layout) are managed by the editorial office and fall outside the reviewer evaluation scope.
Pubdate: 2024-01-01
Viewed:
5323
