JCU Reviewer Guide

Publication Criteria
       To be published in Journal of Chongqing University (JCU), a paper must be technically correct and scientifically valid. It should contain enough technical information to enable peers to corroborate results and follow the details of the work described.
Reviewer Selection
       As a peer-reviewed journal, reviewer selection is critical to the review process. Reviewers are limited to researchers who are expert with a track record of published papers in the field of the paper to be reviewed. Reviewers are invited by email and invitations to review a manuscript are confidential.
Timing
       Reviewers are expected to complete the review within four weeks, very preferably in two weeks. If in any condition a reviewer is difficult to complete the review in time, please notify us without delay.
Online Manuscript Review
       Reviewers must submit their comments via our online submission system by following the link provided in the invitation email. The reviewers should answer the questions below, and provide constructive comments and suggestions to the authors.
1. Is the paper an original contribution?
Original work
Minor extension of known technique
Nothing specially new
Plagiarism
2. How do you rate the significance of the paper?
High value of current interest
Marginal value of current interest
No significant value
No value
3. Is the paper technical soundness and scientific validity?
Yes
Partially
No
4. Are the results reliable?
Yes
Partially
No
5. Are the references presented appropriately?
Yes
Partially
No
6. How about the comprehensibility?
Well written, easily understood
Several reading are needed to understand
Virtually unreadable
7. Is there any unethical issue in the paper?
Yes
No
8. How do you rate the quality of this paper?
Excellent
Good
Average
Marginal
Poor
9. What is your recommendation?
Accept – without revision
Accept - with minor revisions as listed incomments
Accept - with major revisions as listed incomments
Reconsider - after major revisions as listed incomments
Reject - fragmentation/lack of novelty or significance as indicated in comments
Reject - scientific illogicality as indicated in comments
Reject - other reasons as indicated in comments
10. Please list further your comments and suggestions constructive for the authors to improve the scientific quality and presentation of the paper. If you recommend rejecting the paper, please provide the reasons.
Comments: