All submitted manuscripts to Thermo-X must conform to the policies, which follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). This document outlines the standard editorial norms that the journal should jointly comply with.

1. Aims and Scope

The manuscript's topic must align within the journal's scope. For detailed information, please refer to the Aims and Scope.

2. Open Access Policy

The journal is an open access journal where all content is freely accessible to users and their institutions without any charges. Users are permitted to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to the full texts of articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose without needing prior permission from the publisher or author.

3. Licensing and Copyright

The journal is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Authors retain the copyright of their work and agree to make their original works freely available for use, copying, and redistribution in all formats without needing permission, provided that proper citation is given to the authors and the original source.

4. Archiving Policy

All published contents will be archived on the Portico platform to ensure long-term digital preservation.

5. Repository Policy

The journal allows authors to deposit versions of their work in an institutional or other repository of their choice without embargo.

6. Article Processing Charges

The journal adopts open access publishing model. When a paper is accepted for publication, authors or their institutions need to pay Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover the following costs:
● Peer review: Organizing and managing the review process to ensure the quality and scientific validity of the article.
● Editing and formatting: Editing and formatting the article to meet publication standards.
● Digital archiving and publication: Archiving and publishing the article online, making it widely accessible and citable.
● Copyright and licensing management: Managing copyrights and licenses to ensure the article can be freely accessed and used.
● Platform maintenance: Maintaining and updating the online publishing platform to ensure its proper functioning and user experience.
APCs are usually paid by the authors or their institutions or funding bodies. until the January 1, 2029, all APCs will be covered by the publisher Science Exploration Press. For more details, please refer to the Science Exploration Article Processing Charges.

7. Conflicts of Interest Policy

Conflicts of interest in publishing refers to situations where authors, reviewers, or Editors may be influenced in their decision-making or behavior due to personal or institutional interests. These interests may include financial gain, academic competition, personal relationships, or other potential benefits, which could affect their objectivity and fairness in reviewing, editing, or publishing scholarly articles.
Specifically, conflicts of interest may include but are not limited to:
● Financial interests: For example, authors or reviewers may benefit financially from commercial interests or investments related to the research content.
● Academic competition: For instance, reviewers may compete with authors for research projects or funding in the same field.
● Personal relationships: For example, reviewers may have direct personal or professional relationships with authors, leading to bias or favoritism.
● Professional interests: For example, Editors may be influenced by policies or performance evaluations of their institutions, affecting their editorial decisions. 
To ensure fairness and credibility in academic publishing, typically authors, reviewers, and Editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when participating in the review and editing processes. Based on these disclosures, appropriate management measures are implemented to minimize the potential impact of conflicts of interest on the scholarly review process. Details are as below:

7.1 For Authors

Authors are required to disclose all conflicts of interest related to their work. Each manuscript must include a Conflicts of Interest section at the end, detailing any competing financial and/or non-financial interests. If authors have no competing interests to declare, the statement should indicate: All authors declare there is no conflicts of interests.

7.2 For Editors

All Editors of the journal must declare any interests that might affect or be perceived to affect their editorial duties; failure to do so will be considered a violation. Editors with detected conflicts of interest will typically not be invited to make decisions or review manuscripts. Editors should recuse themselves when conflicts of interest could influence their decisions or assessments during the review process.
Editors do not handle their own submissions, and their role on the Editorial Board should be disclosed in the Conflicts of Interest section of their publications in the journal.

7.3 For Reviewers

Typically, reviewers with detected conflicts of interests with authors, will not be invited to participate in peer review, and reviewers should recuse themselves when they have significant conflicts of interest. If a reviewer discloses a conflict of interest with the authors and asserts that it does not affect his/her review of the manuscript, the opinion could be considered. However, the acceptance of the reviewer's comments will depend on specific factors such as the nature and extent of the conflict, clarity of the reviewer's disclosure, and the Editor's assessment. Editors are responsible for ensuring the fairness and transparency of the peer review process, so they may further evaluate whether the conflict could potentially influence the reviewer's objectivity before making a final decision.

8. Confidentiality Policy

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated confidentially in the following main aspects:
● Confidentiality of author identity and contact information: Editors and reviewers handling and evaluating manuscripts must ensure that authors' identities and contact information are not disclosed to protect their privacy.
● Confidentiality of unpublished data and findings: Editors and reviewers should not disclose, use, or reference unpublished data, results, or viewpoints without author authorization to prevent unauthorized use of this information.
● Confidentiality during peer review: Reviewers should maintain confidentiality regarding the content of received manuscripts and must not disclose related information to unauthorized third parties to ensure the fairness and confidentiality of the peer review process.
● Confidentiality of reviewer comments: Reviewers' evaluations and recommendations for manuscripts should be kept confidential and disclosed only to Editors and authors as authorized to maintain the objectivity and independence of the review process.
● Confidentiality in editing and publishing processes: Editorial teams handling manuscripts, making decisions, and preparing for publication must strictly adhere to confidentiality principles to ensure that no sensitive information related to manuscripts is leaked.

These confidentiality principles are to uphold the fairness, transparency, and reliability of academic publishing while safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of authors and their research outcomes.
In cases of suspected misconduct, manuscripts may be shared with other Editors within the journal. Please consult the Misconduct Policy for more information.

9. Availability of Data and Materials

To maintain research transparency and reproducibility, we encourage authors to share experimental materials and research data freely with readers. We recommend that researchers deposit all data and related metadata underlying the findings reported in the manuscript in a publicly data repository, for example, figshare, unless already provided as part of the submitted article. If the authors cannot share the data, please state that the data cannot be shared and provide the corresponding reasons.

10. Authorship

The journal adheres to the authorship definition outlined by the ICMJE. Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. Contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to a paper should be given credit as authors, and contributors credited as authors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published.

10.1 Authorship Criteria

All those designated as authors should meet all of the following four criteria for authorship:
● Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
● Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
● Final approval of the version to be published; AND
● Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged. All individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting, and final approval of the manuscript.

10.2 Corresponding Authors

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication. Although the corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal, The journal Editors will send copies of all correspondence to all listed authors.
The journal encourages corresponding authors to provide their ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) when submitting manuscripts.

10.3 Group Authorship

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors. 
Some large multi-author groups designate authorship by a group name, with or without the names of individuals. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should specify the group name if one exists, and clearly identify the group members who can take credit and responsibility for the work as authors.

10.4 Authorship Contributions

The journal utilizes the CRediT Taxonomy to outline each author's specific contributions to a work. For transparency and to delineate each author's contributions to the research, the journal requires providing an author contributions statement at the end of all submitted manuscripts. This statement should consist of a brief paragraph detailing each author's individual contributions. In cases where authors have contributed equally to the manuscript, the statement should include phrases such as "A and B contributed equally to this work" to indicate this fact.

10.5 Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology in Scientific Writing

Artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship. Therefore, author(s) are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.

10.6 Acknowledgement

The journal encourages authors to list contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship in the Acknowledgments section at the end of the manuscript, such as who provided general supervision of a research group or general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.
Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study's data and conclusions, corresponding author are required to obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals.
Use of AI for writing assistance should be reported in the acknowledgment section.

10.7 Author Name Changes

The journal will consider requests to change an author's name after publication under reasonable circumstances. The editorial office will handle these requests in strict accordance with COPE guidelines, respecting the author's wishes while ensuring a transparent and reliable record of published articles.

10.8 Authorship Changes

If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal Editors will seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.
The journal adheres to the COPE Flow Chart: Changes in authorship for handling authorship changes.

10.9 Authorship Disputes

It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all four criteria; it is not the role of journal Editors to determine who qualifies or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship conflicts. If agreement cannot be reached about who qualifies for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed, not the journal Editor, should be asked to investigate. The criteria used to determine the order in which authors are listed on the byline may vary, and are to be decided collectively by the author group and not by Editors. The journal adheres to the COPE Flow Chart and "How to spot authorship problems" for handling authorship disputes. Unless the validity of the research findings is in question, authorship disputes typically do not require a retraction.

11. Citation

Citing references correctly and appropriately is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of the work. Authors are encouraged to check the requirements and best practices of the journal for citing references below:
● Accuracy: Ensure all cited references are accurate and complete. This includes the correct spelling of author names, accurate titles, publication years, journal names, volume, issue numbers, and page ranges.
● Relevance: Cite only those references that are directly relevant to the content of the manuscript. Avoid over-citing irrelevant sources or including excessive self-citations.
● Proper attribution: Provide proper credit to the original sources of ideas, data, and direct quotations. This avoids plagiarism and gives due recognition to the work of other researchers.
● Consistent formatting: Use the citation style specified by the journal. Consistently apply this format throughout the manuscript. 
● Primary sources: Preferably cite primary sources (original research articles, primary data) over secondary sources (review articles, books) whenever possible. Primary sources provide the most direct evidence for your arguments.
● Up-to-date references: Ensure that the references are current and include the most recent and relevant literature in the field. This demonstrates that the author is aware of the latest developments and research trends.
● Avoid over-citation: Do not overload the manuscript with too many citations, especially if they do not add significant value to the argument or background. Quality over quantity is key.
● Use of direct quotations: When directly quoting another work, use quotation marks and include the specific page number(s) from the original source. Ensure that the quotation is accurate and correctly attributed.
● Paraphrasing: When paraphrasing ideas from other works, rephrase the original text significantly and provide appropriate citations. Even when paraphrased, the original source must be credited.
● Citation of non-peer-reviewed sources: Be cautious when citing non-peer-reviewed sources like websites, blogs, or gray literature. These should be used sparingly and only when no peer-reviewed sources are available. Verify the credibility of such sources. Citations of advertisements or advertorial materials are discouraged.
● Citing own work: When citing your own previous work, ensure it is relevant to the new manuscript and avoid excessive self-citation, which can be perceived as self-promotion.
● Inclusive of different formats: Include a variety of sources such as journal articles, books, conference papers, theses, patents, and data sets if they contribute to the topic. Diverse sources can enrich the manuscript’s foundation.
● Use of reference management tools: Utilize reference management software (e.g., EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) to organize citations and format the bibliography automatically. This helps in maintaining consistency and reducing errors.
● Checking journal guidelines: the journal has specific guidelines for references. Review and adhere to these guidelines before submission to ensure compliance. Please refer to Author Instructions for more details.
By following these requirements and best practices, authors can ensure their citations are clear, accurate, and professionally presented, thus enhancing the credibility and readability of their scholarly work.

12. Bias-Free Language

Bias-free language in academic publishing refers to using language that is free from discriminatory, prejudiced, or exclusionary expressions. The purpose of using such language is to avoid causing harm or offense to any individual or group, while ensuring fairness and objectivity in expression.
Specifically, authors are required to follow the points below:
● Avoidance of discriminatory terms and expressions: For example, refraining from using derogatory or discriminatory vocabulary based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, physical abilities, or other characteristics.
● Use of inclusive expressions: Choosing language that is universally accepted and respects all individuals, such as using gender-neutral language and avoiding terms with negative connotations.
● Maintaining objectivity and neutrality: Avoiding the expression of personal biases or positions in descriptions or comments, ensuring that the content of the article is not influenced by personal or societal biases.
● Respect for individual self-expression: Respecting individuals' self-expression of their identity, gender identity, religious beliefs, etc., and avoiding discriminatory or biased descriptions.
The use of bias-free language is a crucial principle in academic publishing, contributing to the objectivity, professionalism, and respectfulness of academic work, while promoting inclusivity and fairness in the academic environment. The journal follows the guidance of American Medical Association (AMA), American Psychological Association (APA).

13. Borders and Territories Policy

Concerning borders and territories, authors are required to consider several aspects:
● Political sensitivity
- Sovereignty disputes: Avoid causing diplomatic and political disputes when researching disputed territories. Clearly describe the research area and, when necessary, clarify its disputed status.
- International relations: Exercise caution in the statements and conclusions of the research to avoid sensitive topics in international relations, especially those involving border disputes.
● Cultural sensitivity
- Cultural respect: Respect the cultures and traditions of all parties involved in border and territorial issues to avoid offense.
- Language and terminology: Use neutral and respectful language, avoiding terms that may cause misunderstanding or offense. 
● Accuracy and sources of data
- Data sources: Ensure the accuracy and reliability of border and territorial data used, avoiding unverified information.
- Data representation: Accurately depict borders and territories in charts and maps to prevent misleading or misinterpreted representations.
By addressing these aspects, authors can ensure that research and publications involving border and territorial issues are conducted scientifically, respectfully, and free from controversy, thereby upholding the integrity and quality of academic publishing.

14. Peer Review Policy

The peer review process is critical to maintain the quality and integrity of published research. The followings are detailed peer review policies:

14.1 Peer Review Model

The publisher employs a single-blind peer-review process, where the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. This approach ensures that the reviewers can provide unbiased feedback while maintaining their anonymity.

14.2 Manuscript Types Eligible for Peer Review

All accepted manuscript types in the journal undergo rigorous peer review, except for Editorial.

14.3 Online Manuscript System

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are processed through the online manuscript system, Intellimanus, which adheres to international publishing standards as outlined by COPE.

14.4 Publication Criteria

The publication criteria typically involve several aspects to ensure the scientific validity, completeness, and ethical conduct of the research. Here are the main standards:
● Scientific validity
- Innovation: The research must be innovative, presenting new findings or theories.
- Methodology: Appropriate research methods and experimental design should be used to ensure the reliability and reproducibility of the data.
- Data analysis: Data analysis should use correct statistical methods, and the results should be significant and interpretable. 
● Completeness
- Clear structure: The paper should have a clear structure as per the requirements.
- Literature review: Include a comprehensive literature review, citing relevant and recent studies.
- Figures and appendices: Provide necessary figures and appendices to support the data and conclusions.
● Transparency
- Method transparency: Describe research methods in detail to allow others to replicate the experiment.
- Data sharing: Share datasets and analysis code to promote transparency and verification of the research.
- Conflict of interest statement: Clearly state any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the research results.
● Compliance
- Formatting requirements: Adhere to the respective journal's formatting requirements, including font, spacing, and citation style.
- Reference format: Properly format references according to the respective journal's guidelines.
- Language and grammar: Ensure the language is fluent, free of grammatical errors, and uses professional academic language.
● Peer review
- Peer review: The paper must undergo rigorous peer review and receive feedback and recognition from experts.
- Revisions and responses: Make revisions based on reviewers' suggestions and provide detailed responses.
● Publication ethics
- Duplicate publication: Avoid duplicate publication or self-plagiarism; the same research should not be published in multiple journals.
- Authorship: Ensure that all authors have made substantial contributions to the research, avoiding false attribution or plagiarism.
● Citations and references
- Complete citations: Properly cite all referenced literature to avoid plagiarism.
- Detailed references: Provide detailed and accurate references to support the research background and conclusions.
All work during the peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the above publication criteria.

14.5 Editorial Freedom

Under strict adherence to the guidelines of COPE, the journal ensures that the Editorial Board maintains independent rights and autonomy in determining the journal's content, selection, and editorial decisions. This freedom allows Editors to autonomously decide on accepting or rejecting submissions and determining the final content based on academic standards, the journal's positioning, and its mission. The journal ensures the effective realization of editorial freedom through the following measures:

● Independent Editorial Board: Establishing an independent Editorial Board. These Editors have the authority to independently decide whether to accept or reject submissions and how to edit and publish them based on academic quality and journal positioning.
● Establishment of clear editorial policies and guidelines: The journal develops clear editorial policies and guidelines to ensure that all Editorial Board understand the journal's academic mission and operational procedures. These policies include manuscript review processes, decision criteria, ethical guidelines, and conflict resolution mechanisms.
● Transparent and open decision-making processes: The journal ensures transparency and fairness in the editorial decision-making process. This includes transparent editorial policies, manuscript review procedures, and how to handle feedback and complaints from authors and readers. Please refer to Editorial Process.
● Regular audit and evaluation mechanisms: The publisher conducts regular assessments and reviews of the Editorial Board to ensure compliance with best practices and the publisher's guidelines when exercising editorial freedom.

Through these measures, the publisher can effectively guarantee and uphold editorial freedom, ensuring the journal's independence, fairness, and academic reputation within the scholarly community.

14.6 Peer Review Process

14.6.1 Initial Assessment and Decision

1) All manuscripts must align with the journal's scope to which they are submitted.
2) Correct manuscript type and Figures of high resolution. 
3) Accurate referencing of Figures and Tables 
4) Ethical approval and informed consent must be provided if applicable. 
5) Permissions for copyrighted Tables or Figures must be included. 
6) Manuscripts will be checked via iThenticate and must have a similarity rate below 20% from multiple sources and below 10% from any single source, with no similarities in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion sections. 
7) Manuscripts should be written in clear, scientific English. 
8) The Academic Editor (Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editors/Guest Editor) conduct a preliminary quality check. 
9) Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected without external review, or required to revise to meet the criteria. Only submissions that pass the initial assessment will be sent for formal peer review.

14.6.2 Peer Review

1) Typically, three external reviewer reports are required for each manuscript. See more details in the Section Peer Reviewers.
2) If reviews are highly conflicting, the Editor-in-Chief/Associate Editor will make a First Decision.
3) Reviewers should provide detailed comments and a recommendation to the Editors and suggest specific and substantive revisions to the authors. See more details in the Section Qualified Review Report.

14.6.3 Editor's Decision

After peer review, Academic Editors make decisions based on the reviewers' comments and recommendations. The decisions typically fall into several categories:
Accept: Accept as is. The paper is accepted without any modifications or with only minor editorial changes.
Minor Revisions: The paper requires minor revisions, such as clarifications, language polishing, or minor additions that do not affect the main conclusions of the study.
Major Revisions: The paper needs significant revisions, such as additional experiments, re-analysis of data, or substantial improvements to the methodology. The revised paper will need to be resubmitted and may undergo another round of peer review.
Reject
- Reject: The paper does not meet the journal's standards or has significant flaws, and therefore, the Editor decides to reject it. It is not eligible for resubmission.
- Reject and resubmit: The paper shows potential but requires substantial revisions and improvements. Authors are encouraged to revise extensively and resubmit. The resubmitted paper will be treated as a new submission and undergo peer review again.
These decisions ensure that published papers meet high academic and research standards, promoting scholarly exchange and advancement of knowledge.

Note: Members of Editorial Board do not handle their own submissions. These submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, reviewed by at least three independent reviewers. Final decisions are made double-blind by anonymous members of Editorial Board who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. And the Editorial Board members must disclose their editorial role in the Conflict of Interests section of their publications in the journal.
For Special Issue manuscripts, Guest Editor could make recommendations in the process of initial check and Editor’s decision, but the final decision rests with the member of Editorial Board.

14.7 Peer Reviewers

Effective reviewer selection is pivotal in our publication process. During the peer review process, reviewers are required to possess the following accurate qualifications: 
● Hold a doctoral degree and have an institutional email address.
● Professional knowledge and experience: Reviewers must have profound expertise and extensive research experience relevant to the manuscript's topic.
● Academic background: Typically, active researchers or professionals in the field, capable of assessing the academic quality and novelty of the paper.
● Objectivity and independence: They should objectively and impartially evaluate the paper, avoiding personal biases and conflicts of interest.
● Publication record: Reviewers should have a track record of publications in the relevant field or recognized academic contributions.
● Reviewing experience: Preferably, they should have prior experience in peer review, understanding the process and standards involved.
● Time management: They should be able to complete reviews on schedule and provide thorough and constructive feedback.

These requirements ensure that reviewers can provide high-quality peer review services, contributing to the scholarly rigor and reliability of published papers.
Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers, but the final decision on their inclusion rests with the Editor. Authors may also request the exclusion of specific individuals or laboratories, which we will carefully consider and honor. Please be aware that providing false reviewer information may result in manuscript rejection and further investigation for misconduct.

14.8 Qualified Review Report

Reviewers are expected to submit review reports including the following key sections, ensuring it is comprehensive, constructive, and professional:

Introduction
● Acknowledgment: Thank the author(s) for submitting the manuscript and acknowledge their effort and research.
● Manuscript information Clearly state the title and identification number of the manuscript under review.

Overall Assessment
● Importance of the research: Briefly assess the significance and innovation of the research topic.
● General impression: Summarize your overall impression of the manuscript, including its main strengths and weaknesses.

Detailed Feedback
● Research design and methods
- Research question and hypothesis: Evaluate whether the research question is clear and the hypothesis is reasonable.
- Research methods: Assess the appropriateness and application of the research methods, including the description of experimental design, sample selection, and data collection process.
- Data analysis: Evaluate whether the data analysis methods are appropriate and whether the correct statistical tools were used.
● Results and discussion
- Clarity of results: Assess whether the results section is clear, concise, and supported by sufficient data.
- Depth of discussion: Evaluate whether the discussion adequately interprets the results and whether it aligns with or provides new insights compared to existing literature.
● Literature citations
- Literature review: Assess whether the literature review is comprehensive and relevant, and whether it includes the latest and most important studies.
- Accuracy of citations: Check whether the citations are accurate and correctly reflect the content of the referenced works.
● Major issues
- Key deficiencies: Identify and describe any critical deficiencies in the manuscript, such as major problems with the research design or inconsistencies in the data.
- Supplementary experiments: If necessary, suggest additional experiments or further data analysis.

Specific Recommendations
● Suggestions for improvement
- Specific issues: List specific issues in the manuscript, including formatting, language expression, and figures/tables.
- Improvement suggestions: Provide concrete suggestions for improvements to help the author(s) enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Final Evaluation and Recommendation
● Recommendation: Provide a clear conclusion, recommending acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
● Rationale: Clearly explain the rationale for your recommendation to help the Editor make an informed decision.

Professionalism and Constructiveness
● Tone and attitude: Ensure the tone of the review report is professional and constructive, avoiding personal attacks or negative remarks.
● Specificity of feedback: Provide specific, detailed feedback rather than general comments.
By including these evaluations in the review report, valuable feedback could be provided to authors, helping them improve their manuscripts while also providing strong support to Editors in making publication decisions.

14.9 Edit Review Reports

Journal Editors carefully review each reviewer report for validity according to requirements in the Section Qualified Review Report before sending to authors. We typically relay all comments to authors. However, Editors will make the following types of modifications to the reports:
● Formatting and language editing: Editors may adjust the format of the review, such as restructuring paragraphs, correcting grammar errors, ensuring accurate use of terminology, to enhance clarity and professionalism.
● Confidential information handling: If the review contains personal or confidential information about authors or reviewers, Editors may appropriately handle or remove such content to ensure privacy and confidentiality.
● Clarification and supplementary notes: Editors may add clarification or supplementary information to the review as needed, to ensure authors' understanding and accuracy of the review content.
● Removing inappropriate content: Editors may remove or modify inappropriate or irrelevant content in the review to maintain its professionalism and objectivity.
● Addressing formatting issues: Sometimes reviewer reports may have formatting issues such as unclear layout. Editors can adjust these to enhance readability and professionalism.

Any edits made by Editors aim to uphold the accuracy, objectivity, and professionalism of the review while respecting the opinions and suggestions of the reviewers. Editors typically communicate with reviewers before making significant changes, especially in cases of disagreement or misunderstanding. 
For further details on our peer review process, please refer to our Peer Review Guidelines.
Authors with questions regarding the peer-review process can contact the Managing Editor at thermo-x@sciexplor.com. For inquiries specific to a manuscript, authors should contact the assigned Assistant Editor directly.

15. Misconduct and Handling Policies

15.1 Misconduct

Scientific misconduct in research and non-research publications includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images. The followings are the most common forms of scientific misconduct: 
● Falsification of data: ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
● Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work.
● Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
● Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
● Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
● Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
● Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation.

Misconduct does not include unintentional error. The journal encourages anyone, including readers, authors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, etc., to inform against suspected misconduct according to the relevant regulations by COPE and timely inform the journal Editor or the Publisher.

15.2 Handling Policies

The journal uses iThenticate to detect plagiarism, duplicate publication, etc., and uses Figcheck to check Figures, and we also established quality control committee to supervise peer review process and ethical committee to check ethical and consent issues. The journal takes all potential allegations of misconduct seriously, and handles them according to COPE misconduct flowchart.
The journal typically adopts the following policies to address common academic misconduct: 
● Plagiarism: When plagiarism is detected in a submission, the journal promptly rejects the manuscript and notifies the author, and may inform their institution if necessary. Authors may face journal bans or other penalties.
● Fabrication and falsification: If data, experimental results, or other content is found to be fabricated or falsified, the journal rejects the manuscript, informs the author, and may notify their institution if necessary. Authors may face retraction, journal bans, or other penalties.
● Duplicate submission and duplicate publication: If a manuscript has been submitted elsewhere concurrently or has been published in different parts by the same or another journal, the journal rejects the submission and notifies all relevant parties. Authors may face retraction, journal bans, or other academic penalties.
● Authorship issues: If issues arise regarding authorship, such as insufficient contribution or authorship misrepresentation, the journal investigates and may retract the manuscript. Authors involved may face academic warnings or other penalties.
● Reviewer misconduct: Instances of reviewer misconduct, such as leaking manuscript content, conflicts of interest, or providing falsified review reports, lead to the journal revoking their reviewing privileges and may report them to their institution.
● Editorial misconduct: If Editors are found to have conflicts of interest, manipulate the peer review process, or mishandle submissions, the journal revokes their editorial privileges and takes appropriate actions.
These policies aim to uphold the integrity and quality of the publishing, ensuring fairness and reliability in academic research.
For any inquiries, please contact via email at thermo-x@sciexplor.com. Any objections to the handling procedures can be further appealed to the publisher at contact@sciexplor.com.

16. Duplicate Publication

Duplicate Publication refers to the practice of an author publishing the same or substantially the same research content in multiple journals or publications without proper citation or disclosure. This behavior is generally considered a form of academic misconduct and can negatively impact the integrity and credibility of the academic community. Authors are required to read and follow the submission guidelines and policies of the journal to avoid violating their rules regarding duplicate publication.

● Main forms of duplicate publication:
- Direct duplicate publication: Submitting the same article to multiple journals or publishing it in multiple journals.
- Partial duplicate publication: Republishing parts or the entirety of previously published content in a new manuscript without proper citation.
- Simultaneous submission: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, attempting to publish it in different journals. 
● How to avoid duplicate publication:
- Unique contribution: Ensure that each manuscript has a unique scientific contribution, avoiding overlap with previously published research.
- Proper citation: Appropriately cite previously published content if it is used and clearly explain the unique aspects and new contributions of the new research.
- Submission declaration: Declare during submission that the manuscript has not been published before and is not under review at other journals.
- Transparent collaboration: Maintain transparent communication with co-authors to ensure everyone is aware of and agrees to the publication strategy and plan.

The journal uses detection tools to check the manuscript and ensure it does not contain excessive duplicated content. Suspected cases of covert duplicate submissions will be handled seriously according to COPE guidelines, and the Editor may contact the authors' institution if necessary.

Please note, certain situations are generally not considered to be duplicate publication. These mainly include:
● Preprints: Manuscripts that have been posted on preprint servers prior to submission to a journal. Preprints are considered public drafts and are not viewed as formal publications.
● Conference abstracts and posters: Work that has been presented in the form of abstracts, posters, or short papers at conferences, provided that the full manuscript is significantly expanded and contains substantial new content.
● Dissertations and thesis: Manuscripts based on a dissertation or thesis, as long as the journal submission has been substantially revised and updated from the original document.
● Government reports and white Papers: Work that has been published as part of government reports, white papers, or other non-peer-reviewed publications, provided that the submitted manuscript includes new analysis, data, or insights.
● Media coverage: Summaries of the research that appear in the media, such as news articles, interviews, and press releases, which provide an overview rather than detailed scientific findings.
● Different audiences and languages: Articles that have been adapted for different audiences or translated into different languages, as long as there is a clear distinction between the original and the new version in terms of content and target readership.
● Errata and corrections: Published errata, retractions, and corrections that address errors or issues in the original publication are not considered duplicate publications but rather part of the academic record's integrity process.

It is important to note that the specifics can vary depending on the journal's policies and the academic field. Authors should always check the guidelines of the journal to which they are submitting their work and disclose any previous dissemination of their findings to avoid any potential issues.

17. Corrections/Retractions/Withdrawal of Submissions/Expressions of Concern

The journal is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published scientific record, and follows the COPE Retractions guidelines.

17.1 Corrections

Pervasive errors can result from a coding problem or a miscalculation and may result in extensive inaccuracies throughout an article. If such errors do not change the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions of the article, a correction will be published as below: 

● Publish a correction notice as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication; the correction will be on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or a print Table of Contents to ensure proper indexing.
● Post a new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date(s) on which the changes were made.
● Archive all prior versions of the article. This archive will be directly accessible to readers.
● Previous electronic versions will prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article.

The citation will be the most recent version.

17.2 Retractions

Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to articles that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous content or data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable content or data may result from honest error, naïve mistakes, or research misconduct. The main purpose of retraction is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than to punish the authors.
Journal Editors will consider retracting a publication if:
● They possess clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to significant errors (e.g., miscalculation or experimental mistake) or due to fabrication (e.g., falsified data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
● The work constitutes plagiarism.
● The findings have already been published elsewhere without proper attribution, Editor disclosure, permission to republish, or justification (e.g., redundant publication).
● It includes material or data used without authorization.
● Copyright has been violated, or there is another serious legal issue (e.g., libel, privacy concerns).
● It reports unethical research practices.
● It has been published based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
● The author(s) did not disclose a significant competing interest that, in the Editor's view, would have unduly influenced interpretations of the work or recommendations by Editors and peer reviewers.

Journal Editors will publish a retraction notice as below: 
● Link to the retracted article.
● Clearly identify the retracted article. The original article will remain accessible but will be marked as "Retracted Article".
● Be clearly identified as a retraction. 
● Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects. 
● State who is retracting the article.
● State the reason(s) for retraction.
● Be objective, factual, and avoid inflammatory language.

17.3 Withdrawal of Submission

Withdrawal of submission is usually a formal action taken by authors, sometimes it can be prompted by the journal Editors, to remove their manuscripts from the journal's submission and review process before any acceptance or publication occurs.

Common reasons for withdrawal of submission include:
● Discovering errors in the manuscript that need correction.
● Deciding to submit the manuscript to a different journal.
● Resolving conflicts among co-authors.
● Realizing that the manuscript does not fit the scope of the journal.

Handling process:
● The authors submit a formal withdrawal request to the journal Editor, explaining the reason for the withdrawal.
● The Editor reviews the request and confirms the withdrawal, officially stopping the review process.
● The manuscript is removed from consideration, and there is no further action taken on it by the journal.

There is no formal record of the manuscript being published or reviewed by the journal. Authors are free to submit the manuscript to another journal after making necessary revisions if needed.
Please note, in practical editorial work, withdrawal cases can be more complex than mentioned above, and the journal handles them according to COPE guidance.

17.4 Expressions of Concern

Expressions of concern are used to raise awareness to a possible problem in an article. Journal Editors will consider an expression of concern if:

● They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
● There is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors' institution will not investigate the case.
● They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.

An investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.
Expressions of concern will be linked to the article and state the reasons for the concern. If more evidence becomes available the expression of concern could be replaced by a retraction notice or an exonerating statement, depending on the outcome.

18. Thesis Policy

The journal's policy for thesis-based submissions is as below:

● Submission allowed
The journal allows authors to write and submit manuscripts based on their theses, but requires appropriate modifications and expansions to ensure the manuscript makes new academic contributions and differs from the original thesis. Authors are typically required to:
- Add new data or analysis results.
- Update literature reviews and background information.
- Reorganize and rewrite certain sections.
● Explanation and declaration required
The journal requires authors to explain in the cover letter that their manuscript is based on a previous thesis and declare this in the acknowledgment section of the manuscript. This helps Editors and reviewers understand the background of the manuscript and make appropriate evaluations. The declaration should typically include:
-The title and submission date of the thesis.
-The name of the degree-granting institution.
-The availability of the thesis (e.g., through university archives or online databases).
● Avoid complete duplication
The journal does not accept manuscripts that are complete duplicates of theses. This is considered duplicate publication and violates academic publishing ethics. Manuscripts should have significant changes and newness in content, structure, and results.
● Copyright and intellectual property issues
The journal requires authors to confirm that their thesis has not been subjected to an exclusive copyright agreement with other publications and that the author has the right to submit parts or the entirety of the thesis after modification. If the thesis has already been publicly released or archived, the author must ensure there is no conflict with the journal's copyright policy.
● Peer review
Like other manuscripts, submissions based on thesis usually undergo a rigorous peer review process. Journal Editors and reviewers will assess the manuscript's originality, scientific merit, and contribution to ensure it meets the journal's publication standards.
By adhering to these policies and guidelines, the journal believes that authors can successfully transform their thesis research results into journal-published academic articles while maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing.

19. Preprint Policy

The journal accepts manuscripts that have been previously posted as preprints. Authors are typically required to disclose the existence of any preprint versions of their manuscript at the time of submission. This is usually done in the cover letter with details: The title and DOI of the preprint, the preprint server where it is hosted, and the date when the preprint was posted. Preprint submission is not considered duplicate publications. Preprint submissions typically undergo the same rigorous peer review process as other submissions. The preprint status does not influence the impartiality or the thoroughness of the review process. Reviewers will evaluate the manuscript’s scientific merit, originality, and contribution to the field.
If the preprint submission is finally published, authors should appropriately update the final version of their manuscript on preprint platforms and declare: This article has been accepted for publication in the journal. (DOI: xxxxx; URL link: xxxxx).
By adhering to these policies and guidelines, authors can ensure a smooth transition from preprint to peer-reviewed publication, maintaining the integrity and quality of their academic work.

20. Appeals and Complaints 

20.1 Appeals

Appeals are typically initiated to ensure fairness, transparency, and accuracy in the academic publishing process, as well as to uphold the rigor and reputation of academic research. Appeals can be initiated by contacting the Editorial Office at thermo-x@sciexplor.com in the following circumstances:

● Dissatisfaction with peer review results: Authors may perceive decisions made during the peer review process as unfair or unreasonable, such as misunderstandings of their research findings or perceived bias in evaluation.
● Editorial decision disputes: Authors may disagree with the final editorial decision, believing there was bias or errors in the assessment or selection of manuscripts.
● Procedural issues: Examples include procedural errors or improper conduct during the peer review process, such as delays by reviewers or Editors in adhering to stipulated timelines for review or manuscript handling.
● Ethical or behavioral concerns: Issues such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or other ethical matters may prompt authors or readers to request a review or reassessment.
The journal adheres to COPE guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency. Generally, the steps involved in handling appeals include:
● Receipt of appeal request: The Editorial Office receives an appeal request from authors or readers seeking a review or reassessment of a decision or process.
● Evaluation of appeal validity: The editorial team evaluates the reasons and evidence presented in the appeal to determine if there are sufficient grounds for a review or reconsideration of the original decision.
● Review of relevant documents and records: Editors may review original peer review reports, editorial opinions, authors' responses, and any relevant documents to understand the background and basis of the peer review and editorial decisions.
● Re-review or reconsideration: If deemed reasonable and necessary, the Editorial Office may arrange for new peer review or reassessment of the decision. This could involve inviting new reviewers to evaluate the manuscript or a reconsideration by the editorial team.
● Communication of outcomes: The Editorial Office communicates the results of the appeal promptly to the appellant. If necessary, the Editorial Office may publicly disclose the outcome of the appeal process to maintain transparency and trust.
● Final decision: Based on the results of the re-review or reconsideration, the editorial team makes a final decision and shares it with the authors or readers.

The journal strives to uphold fairness and accuracy in academic publishing, ensuring that the rights and interests of all parties involved are respected and protected.

20.2 Complaints

Complaints can be initiated by contacting the Editorial Office at thermo-x@sciexplor.com in the following circumstances:

● Publication ethics issues: Involving plagiarism, data fabrication, author misconduct, and other violations of academic integrity.
● Author rights issues: Disputes regarding copyright, authorship, or other author rights.
● Editorial or publication process issues: Including improper peer review procedures, unreasonable editorial decisions, and delays in manuscript handling.
● Reader service issues: Such as access problems, content errors, or inaccuracies.
● Publication ethics standards issues: Concerns about the boundary between advertising and academic content, and the integrity and credibility of publications.

The journal will handle complaints promptly and fairly to maintain the reputation and quality. Generally, the steps involved in handling complaints include:

● Receipt of the complaint: The Editorial Office will record the details of the complaint and the contact information of the complainant, ensuring timely feedback and processing.
● Preliminary assessment: The editorial team will conduct an initial assessment of the complaint to determine its nature and importance, and decide whether further investigation or action is needed.
● Detailed investigation: If the preliminary assessment finds the complaint valid or requiring further understanding, the Editorial Office may conduct a detailed investigation. This may involve communication with relevant parties (e.g., complainant, authors, reviewers, Editors) and gathering of evidence and documents.
● Decision and action: Based on the investigation results, the Editorial Office will make appropriate decisions and actions. This may include correcting or retracting problematic publications, remedying affected authors or readers, or improving publication processes to prevent similar issues in the future.
● Communication and feedback: The Editorial Office will promptly communicate the handling results to the complainant and explain the actions and decisions taken. For affected authors or readers, the Editorial Office will provide necessary compensation or adjustments to maintain their rights.
● Recording and learning: The Editorial Office will document all steps and outcomes of the complaint handling process, as well as lessons learned. This helps improve publication policies and processes, enhancing the ability and efficiency to handle similar issues in the future.

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity and quality of academic publishing while safeguarding the rights and interests of all parties involved.

21. CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a service provided by Crossref to identify and link academic publications. It aims to provide readers and researchers with a reliable way to verify and access the latest versions of academic articles. CrossMark allows journals and publishers to add a CrossMark badge to their publications. This badge appears on the title page or PDF of the article and provides access to the latest version information through a clickable link. Through CrossMark, readers can view the current status of articles and any updates. If there are new revised versions or retractions, the CrossMark badge provides related information and links.
The journal ensures trust and reliability of academic articles for readers and authors by:
1. Registering and updating metadata: the journal registers article information on Crossref and update relevant metadata each time an article is published or updated.
2. Adding CrossMark badge: For registered publications, the journal displays the CrossMark badge on the title page or PDF of the article and update the current status information on Crossref.
3. Timely information updates: When significant changes occur (such as revised versions or retractions), the journal will promptly update the CrossMark badge and Crossref metadata to ensure readers can access the latest information.
The journal aims to enhance transparency and traceability of academic publications, promoting trust and communication in academic research.

22. Roles, Responsibilities, and Rights

To ensure transparency, rigor, and fairness in the editorial process, we standardize the responsibilities of each role in the editorial workflow.

22.1 Responsibilities of Authors:

Authors have the responsibility to ensure the quality and integrity of academic research and to protect their academic rights. The main responsibilities and rights of authors are as follows:

● Originality: Ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published or submitted elsewhere.
● Data accuracy: Report research data and results accurately, without fabricating or falsifying data.
● Citation: Appropriately cite and acknowledge others' work to avoid plagiarism.
● Ethics approval: Ensure that necessary ethical approvals have been obtained for research involving human or animal subjects.
● Informed consent: Ensure that all human participants in the research have signed informed consent forms.
● Disclosure of conflicts of interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the research results.
● Duplicate submission: Avoid submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.
● Co-authors: Accurately list all co-authors who have made substantial contributions to the research and obtain their consent.
● Responding to reviewer comments: Respond to reviewer comments in a timely manner and revise the manuscript accordingly.
● Transparent communication: Communicate any issues or modifications transparently with the Editorial Office during the review process.

22.2 Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief:

The Editor-in-Chief’s responsibilities are crucial and encompass editorial management, strategic development, compliance, and ethical oversight. The specific responsibilities and rights of the Editor-in-Chief are:

● Journal positioning: Develop and adjust the academic positioning and development strategy of the journal to ensure its impact and reputation in the academic community.
● Manage editorial team: Coordinate the work of Associate Editors, Editors, Assistant Editors, and other support staff to ensure efficient operation of the editorial team.
● Final decision: Make the final decision on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection based on reviewers' feedback and personal judgment.
● Supervise review process: Ensure that manuscripts undergo fair and effective peer review.
● Quality control: Ensure that all published content meets the journal's academic standards and quality requirements.
● Content planning: Determine the thematic direction of the journal, plan Special Issues on hot topics, and attract high-quality submissions.
● Innovation and development: Introduce new technologies and methods to improve the journal's publication quality and efficiency.
● Academic ethics oversight: Ensure that all manuscripts and the publication process comply with academic ethics and publishing standards, including preventing plagiarism and data falsification.
● Handle complaints and appeals: Address complaints and appeals from authors, reviewers, or readers, ensuring fair and transparent resolution.
● Journal promotion: Promote the journal through academic conferences, social media, and other channels to enhance its visibility and impact.
● Attract high-level authors: Attract well-known scholars and researchers to submit papers, enhancing the journal's academic level and impact.

22.3 Responsibilities of Associate Editors:

● Preliminary review: Conduct preliminary reviews of submitted manuscripts to decide whether they should be sent for peer review.
● Quality control: Ensure that the manuscripts they handle meet the journal's academic standards and quality requirements.
● Ethics compliance: Oversee academic ethical issues in manuscripts, ensuring no plagiarism or data falsification.
● Decision recommendations: Make recommendations on accepting, revising, or rejecting the manuscripts they handle
● Team collaboration: Collaborate with the Editor-in-Chief, other Associate Editors, and editorial team members to ensure efficient editorial operations.
● Handle complaints and appeals: Assist the Editor-in-Chief in handling complaints and appeals from authors, reviewers, or readers, ensuring fair and transparent resolution.
● Promotion: Promote the journal at conferences or on social media platforms.
● Reviewing: Review manuscripts within their field of expertise without conflicts of interest, providing constructive feedback.
● Recommend reviewers: Recommend suitable reviewers to ensure fair and professional evaluation of manuscripts.

22.4 Responsibilities of Editorial Board Members:

● Review manuscripts: Provide detailed reviews of submitted manuscripts to ensure their academic quality and integrity.
● Editorial work: Assist the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors in managing the review process, including recommending reviewers, reviewing review reports, and providing revision suggestions.
● Academic guidance: Provide academic guidance and advice on the journal's content and development direction, ensuring the journal's academic level and industry influence.
● Special Issue planning: Participate in planning and editing Special Issues to guide the journal's focus on the latest research hotspots and frontier topics.
● Journal promotion: Actively promote the journal through academic conferences, seminars, and other activities to attract high-quality submissions.
● Academic integrity supervision: Help maintain the journal's academic integrity, ensuring all published content adheres to academic ethics and publishing standards.

22.5 Responsibilities of Guest Editors:

● Topic planning: Determine the theme and scope of Special Issues to ensure they are academically significant and cutting-edge.
● Inviting manuscripts: Invite experts and scholars in relevant fields to submit manuscripts according to the Special Issue's theme.
● Preliminary review: Conduct preliminary reviews of submitted manuscripts and recommend whether they should be sent for peer review.
● Recommend reviewers: Recommend suitable reviewers for manuscripts to ensure fair and professional evaluation.
● Supervise review process: Ensure timely return of reviewer comments and summarize and analyze review feedback.
● Academic quality control: Ensure that articles published in the Special Issue meet the journal's academic standards and quality requirements.
● Ethics compliance: Oversee academic ethical issues in manuscripts to prevent plagiarism and data falsification.
● Recommend acceptance or rejection: Based on review feedback and personal assessment, recommend manuscript acceptance or rejection to the Editor-in-Chief.

22.6 Responsibilities of Reviewers:

● Assess research quality: Evaluate the manuscript's research design, methods, data analysis, result interpretation, and conclusion validity and reliability.
● Check originality and innovation: Assess whether the research is original, makes a new contribution to the field, and check for plagiarism or duplicate publication.
● Provide constructive feedback: Offer detailed and constructive feedback to help authors improve the manuscript. Feedback should be specific, clear, and address specific issues in the paper.
● Determine manuscript suitability: Evaluate whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal, including its alignment with the journal's scope and theme.
● Maintain confidentiality: Keep the manuscript content confidential during the review process and not disclose it to third parties.
● Follow ethical standards: Ensure that all activities during the review process comply with ethical standards, including unbiased evaluation free from personal bias or conflicts of interest.
● Identify errors and issues: Note any errors, flaws, or inconsistencies and suggest areas for further improvement.
● Provide recommendation: Based on the assessment, recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript and support the editor's decision-making process.
● Adhere to review timelines: Complete the review tasks on time to ensure the smooth progression of the journal's review process.

22.7 Responsibilities of In-house Editors:

22.7.1 Managing Editor:

● Daily management: Handle the daily operations of the journal, including manuscript reception, review process management, and publication progress control.
● Team coordination: Coordinate the work between the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Assistant Editors, and reviewers to ensure smooth and efficient editorial operations.
● Manuscript allocation and review process management: Assign manuscripts to Assistant Editors and oversee their organization of peer reviews.
● Academic quality supervision: Ensure all manuscripts meet the journal's academic standards and quality requirements, preventing academic misconduct.
● Publication quality control: Supervise the editing and formatting quality of manuscripts to ensure that the final publication meets the journal's standards and guidelines.
● Publication planning: Develop and execute the journal's publication plan to ensure timely publication of each issue.
● Final review: Conduct a final review of content before publication to ensure compliance with publishing standards and academic requirements.
● Market promotion: Participate in marketing and promotional activities to increase the journal's visibility and impact.
● Academic network: Build and maintain connections with the academic community to attract high-quality manuscripts and excellent scholars.

22.7.2 Assistant Editor:

● Initial review: Conduct preliminary checks of assigned manuscripts to ensure they meet the journal's submission guidelines regarding format and basic requirements.
● Manuscript management: Manage and track manuscript progress to ensure smooth flow through the review process.
● Support editorial decisions: Assist the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Guest Editors in handling manuscripts, preparing reports, and related documents.
● Communication with authors: Convey reviewer comments and revision suggestions to authors, assisting them in understanding and implementing feedback.
● Contact with reviewers: Invite reviewers and maintain communication with them to ensure a smooth review process.
● Format checking: Ensure that manuscript formatting, citations, and layout conform to the journal's standards.
● Proofreading: Proofread manuscripts before publication to correct spelling, grammar, and formatting errors.
● Publication preparation: Assist in preparing the final version of manuscripts to ensure timely publication.

22.7.3 Language Editor:

● Grammar and spelling: Check and correct grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors to ensure language accuracy.
● Sentence structure: Improve sentence structure for clarity and conciseness, enhancing readability.
● Style consistency: Ensure consistency in language style, adhering to the journal's style guide and academic writing standards.
● Terminology usage: Verify and standardize the use of technical terms to ensure consistency and accuracy.
● Logical structure: Check the logical structure of the article, ensuring coherence and logical flow between sections.
● Final manuscript review: Conduct a final review of the manuscript before publication to resolve any language issues.

22.7.4 Production Editor:

● Typesetting and formatting: Typeset and format accepted manuscripts to comply with the journal's publication standards and format requirements.
● Figure and table handling: Process and optimize figures and tables in the manuscript to ensure clarity and quality in the final publication.
● Proofreading and editing: Conduct detailed proofreading and editing to correct spelling, grammar, format, and punctuation errors.
● Citation checking: Verify the accuracy and consistency of citations and references to ensure they meet the journal's citation standards.
● Final proofs: Prepare and review final proofs to ensure that all corrections have been implemented and the manuscript is ready for publication.
● Metadata management: Manage and maintain manuscript metadata, including author information, keywords, and abstracts for literature retrieval and citation.
● Online publication: Upload the final manuscript to the journal's website, ensuring correct display on the online platform.
● Format conversion: Convert manuscripts into different digital formats to meet various electronic publishing needs, such as PDF and HTML.
● Quality assurance: Ensure that all publications meet high academic and technical standards, maintaining the journal's academic reputation and publication quality.
● Feedback handling: Address feedback from authors, Editors, and readers, resolving issues related to manuscript typesetting and publication.

22.8 Rights

The responsibilities of each of the roles mentioned above also represent their respective rights.

Released in November, 2024