Peer Review Policy for Manuscripts of *The Journal of Practical Medicine*

This journal strictly implements a three-tier peer review mechanism, in which the decision on manuscript acceptance is solely based on academic quality, with a focus on evaluating research innovation, clinical practical value and research rigor. Within 1 to 2 months after submission, the editorial office will deliver a processing decision including rejection, revision and resubmission, external review or acceptance based on the opinions of external reviewers and the final conclusion of the editor-in-chief.

◇ Review Process

· Initial Review: Completed by full-time editors for the first-round screening. Manuscripts whose content deviates from the journal's scope or has obvious flaws will be rejected directly at the initial review stage.

· External Review: Manuscripts passing the initial review are forwarded to experts of the editorial committee or professional scholars in corresponding subfields for peer review. Conventional manuscripts are assigned to at least 2 industry experts for review; original research articles are additionally assigned a specialized methodological reviewer. This journal adopts a double-blind review mode throughout the entire process: reviewers and submitting authors are blinded to each other's identity, and all content of the manuscript is kept strictly confidential during the review process.

· Final Review: The editor-in-chief consolidates all review opinions and makes the final decision on acceptance, revision or rejection of the manuscript.

◇ Notes

1. All accepted manuscripts are sent to CNKI and Wanfang Data for academic misconduct detection. The overall repetition rate must be controlled below 20%; manuscripts with a repetition rate ≥ 20% are directly determined to involve academic misconduct and will be rejected. For authors who commit academic misconduct for the first time, the editorial office will issue a written warning; for repeated violations, the author will be included in the journal's academic dishonesty blacklist, and all submissions from this author will be permanently rejected.

2. For manuscripts requiring revision, the editorial office will issue an opinion of revision and resubmission. If an author disagrees with a rejection decision and the manuscript does not fall into any of the three following categories, the author may call the consultation hotline at 020-81866302 or send an email to apply for a reconsideration. Appeal via email is preferred, and the official email address is syyxzz@syyxzz.com:

① The research content is seriously inconsistent with the journal's orientation and purpose;

② The topic lacks innovation and has limited research value;

③ Violations of publication ethics such as duplicate submission, plagiarism, etc.

Note: Rejection decisions after comprehensive three-review evaluation are based on sufficient evidence, and resubmission of the revised manuscript to this journal is not recommended.

3. Submissions from editorial board members and incumbent editors of this journal must fully comply with all review and editing procedures. Editorial board members and editors shall not participate in the review, editing or acceptance decision-making of manuscripts authored by themselves, their relatives or their cooperative teams; peer review work must be completely independent, to avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the fairness of review.

◇ Notes for Reviewers

· Peer review is a key link to identify flaws in manuscripts and improve overall academic quality. Reviewers must keep all content of the reviewed manuscript strictly confidential, and disclosure of unpublished manuscripts is strictly prohibited.

· If a reviewer has a direct conflict of interest with the author or the author's affiliated institution, the reviewer must notify the editorial office immediately and voluntarily withdraw from the current review task.

· Reviewers are required to fill in review opinions completely in accordance with the provided review form, mark revision suggestions on the original manuscript and upload them to the review system.

· The editorial office attaches great importance to reviewers' opinions, and sincerely asks all reviewers to adhere to the principle of objectivity and neutrality, and provide valuable revision guidance and academic evaluation.