Peer Review Process

1. Review System

Peer review serves as the core process for evaluating the academic quality, innovation, and scholarly value of submitted manuscripts, and is critical to upholding academic integrity and publication standards. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology adopts a double-blind peer review system. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent peer reviewers.

2. Reviewer Selection Rules

2.1 Selection Criteria

1. Field Matching: Reviewers must have research expertise closely matching the manuscript’s subject matter and keywords.
2. Academic Qualifications: Demonstrated academic impact through publications in reputable domestic and international journals, with strong professional judgment.
3. Review Reliability: Responsible review attitude, specific and constructive comments, and ability to complete reviews on time.
4. Time Availability: Priority is given to reviewers with sufficient time; reviewers with heavy administrative duties are selected cautiously.

2.2 Selection Sources

1. Dynamic reviewer database of the journal.
2. Authors cited in the manuscript’s references.
3. Authoritative academic literature databases.

2.3 Conflict of Interest & Recusal

Reviewers must recuse themselves if:
1. They are affiliated with the same institution as any author.
2. They have close academic ties (supervisor-student, former advisor/advisee, research collaboration, co-authorship).
3. They have competitive interests, conflicts of interest, or other relationships that may compromise impartiality.
4. The author(s) have requested specific reviewers or institutions to be excluded.

3. Review Content & Standards

Reviewers must provide specific, evidence based, and constructive comments; vague or unsupported judgments are prohibited. Key review dimensions:
1. Academic Value: Scientific significance, practical relevance, innovation, and frontier relevance.
2. Methodological Quality: Scientific validity of experimental design, reliability of materials and methods, data integrity, and appropriate statistical analysis.
3. Literature Foundation: Systematic literature review, standard citation practices, and accurate understanding of field progress.
4. Logical Validity: Consistency between results and conclusions, objective discussion, and rigorous reasoning.
5. Presentation Quality: Accurate terminology, clear and standardized figures/tables, and fluent writing.

4. Review Decisions

1. Accept for Publication: Manuscript is academically excellent with only minor linguistic revisions needed.
2. Accept After Minor Revision: Minor issues can be revised without further review.
3. Major Revision & Re-review: Substantial revisions required; manuscript will be re-reviewed after revision.
4. Reject: Insufficient innovation, methodological flaws, duplicate publication, academic misconduct, or incompatibility with the journal’s scope.

5. Reviewer Code of Conduct

1. Timeliness: Promptly confirm review invitations; return comments by the deadline or notify the editorial office early if unable to comply.
2. Confidentiality: Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content, author information, and review process; no disclosure to third parties.
3. Impartiality: Evaluate solely on academic merit; avoid biased, discriminatory, or derogatory language.
4. Constructive Comments: Critical remarks must be specific, evidence based, and accompanied by clear suggestions.
5. Citation Ethics: Suggest citations only for academic necessity; do not require self-citation or citation of associates to inflate citation counts.
6. Scope of Review: Formatting, typesetting, and reference styling are handled by the editorial office and are not the reviewer’s responsibility.
7. Prohibited Actions: Do not contact authors directly; do not assign review to others without disclosure to the editorial office.

6. Review Process

1. The editorial office conducts initial screening and sends online review invitations to qualified reviewers.
2. Reviewers confirm acceptance and submit comments online within one month.
3. The editorial office compiles all comments; the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
4. For controversial manuscripts, additional reviewers may be invited.