Chinese Journal of Health Management

Reviewers Guidelines

审稿人职责

我们的审稿人在维护已发表研究的质量、诚信与可信度方面起着至关重要的作用。同行评审过程可确保仅发表高质量、研究充分、符合伦理的文章。作为审稿人，您的专业见解与知识不仅帮助作者完善其工作，同时也维护了期刊的出版标准。

审稿人的基本职责

• 保密性 – 审稿人必须将所有稿件视为机密文件，不得共享、讨论或将稿件中的任何部分用于个人或职业利益。
• 客观与公正 – 评审应公正进行，避免偏见或人身攻击。反馈应具有建设性，帮助作者提升其研究质量。
• 按时完成审稿 – 审稿人应在规定期限内完成审稿工作。如无法按时完成，应尽早告知编辑部。
• 利益冲突 – 如审稿人与作者或其所在机构存在关联，应主动回避评审并通知编辑团队。
• 伦理问题 – 若发现抄袭、重复投稿、数据造假或其他伦理问题，应立即报告编辑部。

审稿流程与评审标准

• 原创性与重要性 – 是否提出了新的见解或突破？是否具有影响力？
• 科学严谨性与方法学 – 方法是否合理？结果是否可信？
• 清晰度与结构 – 稿件是否逻辑清晰，格式规范？
• 数据完整性与伦理合规 – 是否存在抄袭、伦理审批缺失或数据造假？
• 参考文献与引用 – 引用是否完整、准确？

审稿人应当：

• 要具体——提供明确的修改建议。
• 保持专业——使用尊重的语言。
• 要全面——既指出优点也指出缺点。

可能的审稿结论：

• 接受原样
• 小修订
• 大修订
• 拒绝

---

Reviewers Guidelines

Our reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. The peer-review process ensures that only high-quality, well-researched, and ethically sound articles are published. As a reviewer, your insights and expertise help authors refine their work while upholding the journal’s publishing standards.

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality – Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and should not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional gain.
2. Objectivity & Fairness – Reviews should be conducted fairly, without bias, or personal criticism. Feedback should be constructive, helping authors improve their work.
3. Timely Review – Reviewers should complete their reviews within the given deadline to avoid unnecessary delays. If unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office promptly.
4. Conflict of Interest – If a reviewer has any conflict of interest (personal, financial, or professional connections with the authors or their institutions), they must decline the review and inform the editorial team.
5. Ethical Concerns – If plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or ethical violations are identified, they should be reported immediately to the editorial team.

Review Process & Criteria

1. Originality & Significance – Does the research present new insights or advancements? Is it relevant and impactful?
2. Scientific Rigor & Methodology – Are methods appropriate and reproducible? Are the results valid and reliable?
3. Clarity & Organization – Is the manuscript well-structured and logically written? Does it follow formatting guidelines?
4. Data Integrity & Ethical Compliance – Any concerns regarding plagiarism, ethics approval, or data manipulation?
5. References & Citations – Are references complete and properly cited?

Reviewers are expected to:

• Be specific – Highlight areas that need improvement and provide clear suggestions.
• Be professional – Use respectful language and avoid harsh criticism.
• Be thorough – Address both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Possible Review Outcomes:

• Accept as is – Ready for publication.
• Minor revisions – Small corrections required before acceptance.
• Major revisions – Significant improvements needed; manuscript re-evaluated after revision.
• Reject – Does not meet the journal’s standards.