Welcome to Journal of Graphics
share:
Criteria and Requirements for Peer Review of Journal of Graphics
Peer review is an essential part of the publication process of an S&T journal and can help maintain the academic quality and reputation of the journal. The reviewers would read through the manuscript and make a comprehensive, objective, and fair evaluation in terms of the rationale, innovation, academic quality, and practicability. They should also make recommendations on whether it merits publication and on revisions.
I. Review Criteria
The basic viewpoint of the manuscript should conform to China’s guidelines and policies on science and technology and publication, abide by laws and regulations, and should not involve any confidential content. The reviewers shall rigorously evaluate the academic quality of the manuscript, adhere to the academic truth, overcome any impact of personal factors, and focus on the innovation, reliability, academic quality, and practicality of the manuscript.
II. Double-Blind Review
The journal adopts double-blind review, in which the authors and reviewers are anonymous in the manuscript and review comments. The reviewers only review the content of the manuscript, and authors’ personal factors would not interfere the review, thus ensuring the fairness and impartiality of the review comments.
III. Review Requirements
When reviewing the manuscript, reviewers should focus on the innovation, academic significance, and practicality of the manuscript in terms of academic viewpoints, theoretical methods, and data. They should state the main problems and specific suggestions for revision in terms of structure, data sources, data analysis, graphs, writing style, and expressions, as well as avoiding general and vague comments.
The title of the manuscript should be precise, concise, and consistent with the content. The abstract should be succinct, and the English abstract should match the Chinese one, with accurate English terms and grammar. The introduction should be straightforward and clearly state the rationale, purpose, background, methodology, significance of the manuscript. The main part should be appropriately and clearly structured, with major points highlighted. The argument should be clear and rigorous, the writings style smooth and concise, and the discussion logical and supplemented by data. The terms, units of measurement, symbols, and abbreviations should stick to the standards. The figures and graphs (including photos and line drawings) should not duplicate the text and be presented clearly and correctly with concise and reasonable designs and accurate data. The references should list no less than twelve articles, including the necessary domestic and foreign sources of different types in the last five years.
IV. Principles of Evaluation and Decisions
The reviewers should evaluate the manuscript according to the criteria and requirements and propose the decision from the following options.
1. Accept: The manuscripts accepted full-text should be the first of their kind published at home and abroad, those with novel and mature results, or those with new or in-depth practical experience and insights. If the content is redundant or repetitive, the authors should simplify the manuscript before being accepted.
2. Acceptance after revision: For manuscripts that are preliminary research reports worth of repetitive verification (with only a few publications of similar reports), but have new research arguments, such submissions can be accepted after revision based on suggestions.
3. Revise and review: For manuscripts that are preliminary reports with novel research arguments but insufficient argumentation or imprecise data, such submissions need to be reviewed again after revision.
4. Return: Such submissions may be returned: those inconsistent with the nature or purpose of the journal, resembling many similar reports, conducted with immature experimental methods, proved to be plagiarized or repeatedly published, or average and of little value. Any manuscript found to have been submitted to two journals will be returned.
5. Submit to other journals: The reviewer may suggest submitting to other journals in the case of manuscripts of certain value but inconsistent with the purpose of the journal.
V. Reminders for Reviewers
1. Reviewers should be highly responsible for the journal, readers, and authors, and fulfill their duty seriously, conscientiously, and meticulously. They should decide on the selection of manuscripts according to the quality. If they are in conflict of interest with any manuscript, they should recuse themselves from the review and processing of the manuscript.
2. Reviewers should clearly state their opinions on the manuscript under review and provide their comments seriously. The reviewers should give their full requirements in terms of academic improvement and writing at one time, so that the manuscripts would not undergo repeated revisions or be returned after revision.
3. Reviewers should neither disclose the reviewed manuscript to others nor have discussions with those unrelated. The Editorial Board is responsible for gathering all comments and communicating with the authors directly.
4. The comments on the manuscript should be submitted to the Editorial Office within two weeks. If the manuscript is beyond the reviewer’s specialty, there is any difficulty, or the reviewer cannot complete the review on time due to workload or personal reasons, they should promptly send the manuscript back and inform the Editorial Office.