For Authors

1. Authors must submit original research that has not been previously published. The data presented must be truthful and reliable. Any form of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism is strictly prohibited. When citing the ideas, data, or findings of others, proper attribution must be provided.

2. The journal does not charge any fees for manuscript processing.

3. All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the research. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are aware of and agree with the author order and the content of the submission. Any change to authorship or author order must be approved by all authors.

4. Before acceptance, authors may revise their manuscripts based on reviewer feedback, but may not make substantial changes to the core results or methods. If errors are discovered, authors should proactively contact the editorial office to arrange corrections. Revised manuscripts should be submitted within the specified deadline; if delayed, a justification must be provided. Requests for withdrawal must be formally submitted and approved by the editorial office.

5. The journal takes academic misconduct seriously, including but not limited to plagiarism, misappropriation of others’ work, data fabrication, and citation manipulation. Once verified, the manuscript will be withdrawn, and the authors involved will be banned from submitting to the journal for five years. For published papers found to involve misconduct, a formal retraction statement will be issued.

6. Authors are encouraged to provide original data and code—where privacy and confidentiality agreements are not violated—to promote the verifiability and reproducibility of research results. The location and access method for such data should be specified.

7. The journal welcomes scholarly comments and discussions on published articles. Authors may submit a correction statement, and the editorial office will issue an erratum or correction notice as appropriate.

For Reviewers

1. Review comments should be objective, fair, and provide clear opinions on the academic value and publication standards of the paper, avoiding ambiguity. Avoid reviewing papers with conflicts of interest or shared benefits. Report any serious scientific misconduct to the editorial office.

2. Submit review comments within the planned timeframe. Notify the editorial office promptly of any delays or hindrances to completing the review.

For Editors

1. Editors must ensure that each manuscript is subject to fair and objective peer review, avoiding any form of discrimination or bias. Manuscripts reporting significant research findings should be given priority to enhance academic dissemination efficiency.

2. The journal maintains a transparent complaints and appeals process. Authors who disagree with editorial or reviewer decisions may submit an appeal to the editorial office, which will convene an expert panel to review the case and provide a reasoned response.

3. The editorial office bears ethical oversight responsibility for all publication activities, and must prevent and prohibit plagiarism, duplicate publication, and citation manipulation. Editors must not condone or encourage any violations of academic ethics.

4. Editors should facilitate constructive academic communication between authors and reviewers, filter out inappropriate or offensive comments, and provide authors with useful feedback to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Copyright

    Upon acceptance and correction, the paper's copyright is transferred to the journal's editorial office. The office holds exclusive rights for use, including translation, adaptation, compilation, and derivatives

Peer Review Policy

1. All manuscripts published in the journal must undergo a rigorous peer review process. After submission, manuscripts will be subject to an initial editorial screening to determine whether they should proceed to external review. Manuscripts passing the initial screening will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers with relevant expertise, who will evaluate them based on originality, scholarly value, methodological rigor, and logical soundness, and provide recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection.

2. The journal operates under a double-blind peer review system. The editorial office will make the final decision based on the reviewers’ feedback.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any manuscript and does not promise expedited review. However, we are committed to improving review efficiency without compromising quality.