1. Peer review mechanism
Chinese Journal of Intelligent Science and Technology is committed to thorough and efficient evaluation of submitted manuscripts and adopts a rigorous double-blind review procedure. This means that the reviewers are unknown to the authors and the authors are unknown to the reviewers. The editorial department selects at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. When the evaluation opinions are inconsistent, the editorial department will select another reviewer to evaluate the manuscript. The double-blind review process prevents bias towards the authors. The entire review process may take 2 to 3 months.
① Responsibility and obligation
Peer review experts need to put forward professional suggestions regarding the revision of articles according to the scientific, academic, innovative, readable, practical, rigorous, normative aspects of papers, as well as whether there is academic misconduct, whether there are ethical problems, etc., to help the authors improve the quality of contributions. Peer review experts also need to provide some suggestions regarding the verdict of the manuscript, which help the editors to judge the manuscript. Peer review experts should provide review comments in a timely manner. If peer review experts believe that they are not competent for reviewing the paper, or if they are unable to complete the review within the agreed-upon time, they need to inform the editors immediately so that the editors can contact other peer review experts.
② Objectivity
Peer review experts need to review papers objectively and impartially. The standard for judging papers is academic quality, and personal criticism of authors is not allowed.
③ Confidentiality
The journal adopts a double-blind review process. Any papers received by peer review experts must be regarded as confidential documents, and showing or discussing the papers with others is not allowed; the misappropriation of the manuscript content is also not allowed.
④ Conflict of interest
Peer review experts should not seek personal improper private interests through their personal status as review experts. When there is a conflict of interest between peer review experts and the author or his or her unit due to competition, cooperation or other factors, the peer review experts should actively avoid reviewing the manuscript.
2、Peer Review Process
① Initial review
All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editor. The editors use a web-based program Academic Misconduct Literature Check (AMLC) (https://check.cnki.net/amlc2/) which compares documents and marks similarities as a possible instance of plagiarism. In addition, the editors check whether the manuscript conforms to the aims and scope of this journal.
② Peer review
The manuscript deemed suitable enters into the peer review process. The editorial department selects at least two expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the manuscript. According to the innovation, scientificity and practicability of the manuscript, reviewers evaluate the manuscript and give an objective and fair opinion. When the evaluation opinions are inconsistent, the editorial department will select another reviewer to evaluate the manuscript.
③ Final decision
The peer review opinion includes: the accepted manuscripts should be sent to the editor in chief for final review, the manuscripts should be returned for revision, acceptance or rejection. The referees' comments will be returned to the principal/corresponding author(s) in three months.
During the revision period, the authors will be informed by email and can view the revision comments in the "Author Review" module. The revised manuscript should be submitted within the specified time, accompanied by the modification explanation. The modification explanation should be explained item by item based on the revision comments. The authors should use "revision mode" for the revision.
Some manuscripts need to be revised, so the stages of "Peer Review", "Review Again" and "Revison" may be repeated.
