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 that the authors are unknown to the reviewers. The editorial office 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 double-blind review process prevents bias or perception of bias towards the authors. The entire review process may take 2 to 3 months.
①Responsibility 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, to provide the editors with suggestions regarding the verdict of the manuscript and to help the editors to judge the manuscript. Peer review experts shall 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 new peer review experts.
②Objectivity
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.
③Confidentiality
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 contents of papers is also not allowed.
④Conflict of interest
Peer review experts shall 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
①Initial review
All manuscripts are initially evaluated by the editor. The editor uses 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, and checks the suitability for the purpose and scope of the journal.
②Peer 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, scientificness 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.
③Final decision
The peer review opinion is that the accepted manuscripts shall be sent to the editorial director for final review, and the manuscripts shall be returned for revision, acceptance or rejection. The referees’ comments will be returned to the principal/corresponding author(s) in three months.
