Zhongzhuo Publishing Group

Reviewer's Guide

The benefits of free review of journals published by Zhongzhuo Publishing Group (hereinafter referred to as "journals")

Peer review is an indispensable part of the publishing process, ensuring that journals maintain high quality standards for their published papers. Review is often a silent and unpaid task. We highly appreciate the efforts of the reviewers.

When reviewing a journal, you:

·Get a discount so you can reduce the processing fee (APC) for future submissions to any journal. Discounts given to specific individuals are not transferable and must be mentioned in the submission process. Please note that auditor credentials must be applied for before acceptance. Once an APC invoice is issued, no further discounts can be applied for.

·Included in the journal's annual accreditation review.

·Recognized as the Outstanding Critic Award for the magazine.

Invitation for review

The manuscript submitted to the journal should be reviewed by at least two experts. Require reviewers to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and provide suggestions to the journal editor on whether the manuscript can be accepted, whether modifications are needed, or whether it should be rejected.

We require invited reviewers to:

·Quickly accept or reject any invitation based on the title and abstract of the manuscript;

·If it is necessary to refuse the invitation, recommend other reviewers;

·If more time is needed to write the report, please apply for an extension.

As part of the evaluation, the reviewer is required to:

·Evaluate the English proficiency of readers interested in scoring originality, importance, presentation, scientificity, and quality, as well as the overall score and manuscript;

·Provide comprehensive suggestions for the publication of the manuscript;

·Provide detailed and constructive review reports;

Potential conflicts of interest

We request the reviewers to inform the journal editors of any conflicts of interest that may harm the review report in a positive or negative manner. The editorial department will make every effort to check before inviting, but we appreciate the cooperation of the reviewers on this issue. Reviewers who have previously commented on a manuscript for another journal should not be invited to evaluate it as a conflict of interest. In this case, the reviewer should always inform us whether the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version.

Confidentiality and anonymity

Reviewers should ensure that the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, is kept confidential. The reviewer must inform the editorial department whether they want students or colleagues to represent them in completing the review.

Conduct single blind or double blind peer review of journals. Reviewers should be careful not to disclose their identities to the author in their comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Some journals offer the possibility for authors to publish comment reports on their papers and agree to reviewers signing their public comment reports, but this can only be done with the author's explicit permission. If this is the case, it will be indicated in the message inviting you to view. In all other cases, the audit report is considered confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.

Please note that as a reviewer, you can access the reports of other reviewers through the online submission system after submitting the report.

Timely review of reports

The journal aims to provide efficient and high-quality publishing services for authors and the scientific community. We require auditors to provide audit reports in a timely manner to provide assistance. If you need to extend the review deadline, please contact the editorial department.

Peer review and editing program

All manuscripts sent to our journal undergo rigorous and thorough peer review by experts (including research and review articles, spontaneous submission, and invitation to submit papers). The executive editor of the journal will conduct a preliminary review of the manuscript upon receipt. The editorial department will organize a peer review process conducted by independent experts and collect at least two review reports for each manuscript. Before making a final decision, we will require our authors to conduct sufficient revisions (if necessary, a second round of peer review). The final decision is made by academic editors (usually the chief editor of a journal or guest editor of a special issue). The accepted article has undergone manuscript editing and English editing.

Please note that your suggestion is only visible to journal editors and not to authors.

Rate the manuscript

Please evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

·Creativity/Novelty: Is this question original and clearly defined? Does the result reflect the current progress in knowledge?

·Meaning: Is the result appropriately explained? Are they important? Are the results reasonable and support all conclusions? Have assumptions and speculations been carefully evaluated?

·Speech quality: Is the article written in an appropriate manner? Is the data and analysis appropriate? Is the highest standard used to present the results?

·Scientific rationality: Is the research design correct and the technology reasonable? Is the analysis conducted using the highest technical standards? Is the data strong enough to draw conclusions? Do the described methods, tools, software, and reagents have sufficient details to allow other researchers to reproduce the results?

·Interest in readers: Are these conclusions interesting to readers of the journal? Will this paper attract a wide range of readers, or will it only be of interest to a few? (Please refer to the objectives and scope of the journal)

·Overall advantage: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Has this work brought progress to current knowledge? Has the author solved an important long-term problem through intelligent experiments?

·English proficiency: Is English used appropriately and easy to understand?

Submissions to journals should comply with the highest standards of publishing ethics:

·The manuscript should only report results that were not previously submitted or published, or even partial reports.

·The manuscript must be original and should not be reused from other sources without proper citation.

·For biological research, the reported research should be conducted in accordance with generally accepted ethical research standards.

If reviewers discover misconduct or fraud in such systems, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, they should immediately raise these issues with internal editors.

Overall recommendations

Please provide overall suggestions for publishing the manuscript in the following way:

Accept existing article: This article is accepted without further changes.

Accepted after minor revisions: Based on the comments of the reviewers, the revised document is accepted in principle. The author has five days to make minor revisions.

Reconsidering after major revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript will depend on the revisions. If some reviewers' comments cannot be modified, the author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal. Usually, only one major revision is allowed. The author will be required to resubmit the revised paper within ten days, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.

Rejection: The article has serious flaws and has not made any original contributions, and the file has been rejected and has not been resubmitted to the journal.

Please note that your suggestions are only visible to journal editors, not authors.

Audit report

The audit report should include:

·A brief summary (a short paragraph) outlining the objectives of the document and its main contributions.

·Comprehensive comments emphasize areas of strengths and weaknesses. These comments should be specific enough for the author to respond.

·Specific comments related to line numbers, tables, or charts. Reviewers do not need to comment on formatting issues that do not blur the meaning of the paper, as the editor will address these issues.

Please note that the journal follows multiple standards and guidelines, including those from ICMJE (Medical Journal), CONSORT (Trial Report), TOP (Data Transparency and Openness), PRISMA (System Evaluation and Meta-analysis), and ARRIVE (In vivo Reporting). Experiment). For detailed information, please refer to the publication standards and guidelines page or contact the editorial department. Reviewers familiar with the guidelines should report any doubts they have about their implementation.

Your opinion should not include an explanation of whether you believe the article should be accepted for publication. For further guidance on writing strict audits, please refer to the following documents:

1. Ethical guidelines for COPE peer reviewers. Publishing Ethics Committee. Available online.

2. Hames，I。 Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: a guide to good practice. Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.

3. Write journal article reviews. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online.

4. Golash-Boza，T。 How to Write Peer Review for Academic Journals: Six Steps from Start to End. Available online.

Sharing of journal review reports

The reviewer may suggest that the manuscript is more suitable for publication in another journal of Zhongzhuo Publishing Group. In order to save time and effort, authors can request that the review report be transferred to another journal. You can find the complete list of journals published by the publishing group on the official website www.zzcbjt.com.