Review Measures for Modern Transportation and Metallurgical Materials (Provisional)
According to relevant regulations and standards such as the "Regulations on Publishing Management", "Regulations on Journal Publishing Management", and "Quality Requirements for Scientific and Technological Journals", this method is formulated.
Position setting
The editorial department of Modern Transportation and Metallurgical Materials is the main unit responsible for journal review management, implementing the chief editor responsibility system, and setting up positions such as chief editor, deputy chief editor, responsible editor, and editor according to responsibilities and work division.
Review content and process
Review content
1. Strict manuscript review. The pre review of the manuscript is the responsibility of the editor. According to the requirements of our journal's "Submission Guidelines", we are responsible for registering submissions and conducting preliminary reviews on the scope of the topic, research level, content integrity, plagiarism detection, and other related aspects.
2. Strictly follow the initial review. The papers that have passed the preliminary review will be sent to the deputy editor in chief of the relevant direction for initial review. The initial review will form initial review opinions and select the best candidates for external blind review by experts. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements after initial review will be rejected by the deputy editor after being deemed unsuitable for publication.
3. Strictly implement the double-blind evaluation system. The editor selects and contacts peer reviewers who match the direction for blind review, fills out the review form for revision.
The main content of the double-blind peer review of document images 230/10000 real-time translation is as follows:
(1) Evaluate the academic value and level (theoretical level, scientificity, innovation, etc.) of the manuscript, as well as whether the structure is rigorous and scientific, and provide written opinions according to the review requirements.
(2) Both experts have provided acceptance comments on the manuscript, which has entered the final review process by the editor in chief.
(3) If one of the two experts gives a rejection opinion and, after confirmation by the deputy editor, deems it necessary to conduct a retrial, it will be reviewed by a third peer expert. If the third expert signs a rejection opinion, the manuscript will be rejected; The third expert signs the accepted manuscript and enters the final review process by the editor in chief.
(4) Both experts have raised objections to the manuscript and it will be treated as a rejection.
4. Strictly adhere to the final review. The final review is the responsibility of the editor in chief.
The main contents of the final review are as follows:
(1) Review the current table of contents and determine whether to issue a release.
(2) The editor in chief should pay close attention to manuscripts with differences in review, and make a decision on whether the manuscript can be adopted after reading it thoroughly.
(3) The editor in chief has one veto power over all pending articles during the final review.
Principles for handling special issues
When reviewers have different opinions on the manuscript, handle them according to the situation:
1. If there are doubts about the submission of multiple manuscripts or academic integrity, the manuscript will be rejected after verification;
2. When there are different opinions on the research direction or academic viewpoint of the manuscript, the review process can be increased and the author can be requested to revise the response. The revised manuscript can only proceed to the next procedure after unanimous agreement from experts;
3. When there are different opinions on the format of the text expression in the manuscript, relevant experts can be consulted to assist the author in making revisions.