Peer Review Rules

Peer review is an important part of publishing articles in an academic journal. Review of the papers by peer experts enables the Editorial Board to decide whether to adopt the article, so as to ensure the academic quality of the journal. The Editorial Board of Clean Coal Technology implements a three-stage review system, i.e. initial review by the editor, review by peer experts, and final review by the editor-in-chief (editorial committee). Before the article is submitted for review, relevant information such as the author's name, employer, fund sponsorship will be deleted, so that all review procedures are covered by double blind review which is detailed as follows:

1. Initial review by editor

Preliminary review by the responsible editor. The preliminary review of the article is the first screening of the author after submission, and it is initially confirmed whether it conforms to the purpose and scope of publication of the journal; whether the overall structure of the article conforms to the writing format of scientific and technological papers; whether the content of the article is innovative, leading-edge and high academic value. Appropriate review experts will be selected after the initial review and submitted for review in a timely manner. At this stage, our journal is the responsible editor for the preliminary review. Articles of poor quality or that do not meet the purpose of running the journal will be rejected.


2. Peer review

Peer review is the most critical part of the three-trial system. Our journal adopts a double-blind review system of “middle-aged and young experts + editors / reviewers”. Experts are evaluating about the topic selection of the papers submitted by the authors, according to the innovative research, the correctness and level of academic theories, and professional evaluation of the value for peer reference. The evaluation results will become an important basis for the selection of papers in our journal. To ensure that peer-reviewed experts can review manuscripts impartially and objectively, peer-reviewed experts use double-anonymous review, that is, the responsible editor sends the papers without any author information to the reviewing experts for review, and the authors do not know any information about the reviewing experts. Double anonymous reviewers weakened the author's gender, research institution level, and other information. Reviewers can abandon concerns about relationships and avoid impartial evaluation of manuscripts due to non-academic quality factors.


3. Final review by the editor-in-chief (editorial committee)

In the three-trial system, the final review of the chief editor or executive editor is the final review link, which plays a decisive role in the publication quality and academic level of the journal. The final review is mainly responsible for the political direction, academic quality, and editorial quality of the publication, so strict review of the manuscript is required.The editor-in-chief decides to adopt the article or reject it for revision and re-review based on peer review opinions. Controversial articles will be submitted to the editorial committee for discussion and a final review conclusion based on the specific review opinions.

上一篇:Academic Misconduct Identification

下一篇:Publishing Ethics Statement