Peer Review and Evaluation System of Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae

To ensure the quality of manuscripts published in Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae, all accepted manuscripts must undergo a system of preliminary review, external peer review, re-review, and final review.

1 Third Review and Peer Review System

1.1 Upon receiving all submitted manuscripts, the editorial department shall conduct a "preliminary review" by the responsible editor. This involves assessing whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's objectives, scope of coverage, and target audience; examining the completeness of submitted materials, adherence to writing standards, and the absence of recent publications on similar topics; and comparing the submitted manuscript with previously published works in the same category to identify any distinctive contributions.

1.2 After the initial review editor determines that the manuscript generally meets the requirements, it is submitted for peer review to experts and professors with profound expertise in the relevant discipline based on its subject matter. The peer reviewers are all influential scholars in the respective fields. For each manuscript, 2–3 peer experts are selected as needed, and a double-blind review method is employed according to the content of the manuscript.

1.3 The responsible editor shall carefully review the comments and suggestions provided by external reviewers regarding the manuscript. After verification, an opinion shall be formulated on whether to submit the manuscript for additional external review (peer review). If external review is not required, the revised manuscript shall be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval. If external review is necessary, the author shall resubmit the revised manuscript for external review, and the manuscript shall be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval after incorporating the feedback from external reviewers.

1.4 Integrate preliminary review and external review opinions to resolve unresolved issues from initial and re-review stages, conduct comprehensive manuscript evaluation, and determine whether to retain (use) or reject (return) the manuscript.

1.5 For manuscripts retained and subsequently revised by the author before submission, the responsible editor shall conduct a thorough review based on expert peer review comments, editorial department's revision feedback, and final approval. When necessary, peer experts may be invited for re-evaluation to ensure compliance with editorial and publishing standards.

1.6 For manuscripts that are deemed unsuitable for publication in this journal after review, the responsible editor shall provide specific comments.

1.7 The chief editor conducts the "final review" of the revised (modified) manuscript. The final review bears comprehensive responsibility for the content quality of the manuscript. If any issues are identified in the manuscript, objections may be raised, and the responsible editor may be instructed to reconsider or request a re-evaluation by experts to propose alternative solutions (review key points).

2 Key Points of Peer Review

2.1 The manuscript shall implement the policies and guidelines of the Party and the state regarding science and technology, health, and publishing; comply with national laws and regulations, and avoid political errors; refrain from exaggeration or disclosure of confidential information.

2.2 The manuscript content should be objective, accurate, and possess certain scientific value, providing meaningful guidance to readers.

2.3 Evaluate the content of the manuscript, assessing the maturity of its technical approach, rigor of research design, and accuracy of methodologies. Determine whether diagnostic evidence is sufficient and data completeness is maintained. Examine whether clinical manifestations and therapeutic efficacy observations are objective and thorough. Assess the necessity of randomized controlled trials and follow-up studies, along with their comparability. Verify data accuracy, completeness, and statistical validity. Ensure conclusions are well-supported and appropriately formulated. For review articles and lecture-based manuscripts, review whether they address universally relevant issues and reflect advancements in traditional Chinese pharmacy. Include the author's original perspectives and evaluations. Confirm that the proportion of recent literature citations (particularly foreign studies) meets required standards.

2.4 Compared with similar articles published domestically, evaluate whether the author's manuscript incorporates novel or more in-depth practical experience, scientific discoveries, and insights.

2.5 Appropriateness of cited references in the manuscript. Presence of plagiarism or copying issues in the manuscript. Consistency between the used charts, graphs, and photographs with textual descriptions, and absence of confusion or misattribution.

3 Article Processing System for Editorial Board Members and Editors

To ensure absolute fairness and academic quality, Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae adheres to the double-blind fairness principle in academic publishing for submissions from editorial board members or editors. Manuscripts are assigned by the editorial department to an impartial editor for review, focusing on whether their content meets the journal's professional requirements. If the initial review is passed, a "double-blind" evaluation will be conducted, and recommended accepted manuscripts will be submitted to the chief editor for final review.

4 Responsibilities and Standards for Peer Reviewers

Reviewers must adhere to academic ethical standards, maintain strict confidentiality regarding manuscript content, and decline to review submissions involving conflicts of interest (such as those involving affiliated parties, competing research teams, or collaborating institutions). All review tasks must be completed within the stipulated timeframe. If unable to complete the review process, reviewers should promptly notify the editorial office. Review comments should be objective, detailed, and well-supported, avoiding subjective biases, ambiguous statements, or inappropriate evaluations. Without authorization, reviewers are prohibited from using unpublished manuscript content for personal academic purposes.